Salikh Zakirov wrote: > Tim Ellison wrote: >> Weldon Washburn wrote: >>> How about move >>> M3 to the end of September? This will give us a few weeks to discuss >>> what should (and should not) go into M3. >> The content of M3 is whatever is in SVN at the point we declare it >> stable. If there is code that is misbehaving then we would take it out >> to achieve stability across the codebase. IMHO extending the period to >> decide what is in it doesn't make sense. > > FWIW, I think that keeping 2-month cycle is better for the project. > > For an external observer, postponing the release schedule will most likely > mean that either > (1) SVN trunk has serious stability problems, or > (2) development stalled and no differences from M3 are there to warrant a new > release > To my knowledge, both are not true, and neither is the message we would want > to send to the world. > > As I reasoned elsewhere, I think the most beneficial strategy for Harmony > project > now would be release _officially_ (rather than doing developer snapshots) and > keep to the schedule, > so as the distributions could start including Harmony into the 'unstable' > areas.
Agreed, and the problems with getting a JCK license to certify official releases have been well-documented. We want to release a Java implementation, not something that is not quite Java. I assure you that fixing this is something the ASF is actively working on. Regards, Tim
