While I appreciate the desire to not hold up releases, sometimes just saying we aim for a release at the end of the week or so on, with the RM having the final say, gives people who are lazy by nature (guess who I mean) a nudge to get off their behinds and do something (build/test/fix etc etc).
I'm +1 for Sander being RM and +1 for him rolling when he sees fit, just giving another viewpoint :) david > At 03:58 PM 9/6/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Dale Ghent wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Greg Stein wrote: > > > > > > | You can always do a 2.0.42 next week if you'd like. > > > > > > argh, we have to remember... Apache 2.0 is GA, not beta! > > > >No, it is not. Apache 2.0.40 is GA. Apache 2.0 is a nonentity. 2.0.41 > >will start out as alpha, then be moved to beta, and finally to GA when and > >if we believe it is GA quality. Do NOT believe that just because 2.0.40 > >was GA, 2.0.41 will be too. We specifically said that wasn't true for 2.0. > > Exactly. The only reason folks may be puzzled by this change is that .40, > .39 and .36 flew out the door in pretty much one pass. That's simply because > the security bugs they addressed outweighed any comparison. > > If .41 is worse than .40 (or .36 for that matter) it shouldn't leave beta > for GA. > Bugs new to .40/.41 get fixed, then .42 will be released (alpha, then beta) > and if it's *finally* better than .36 or .40 we can release it GA quality, with > the seal of quality > > "We consider Apache 2.0.x to be the best version of Apache available" > > Thanks for reminding us of this, Ryan. > > Sander, care to tag today even, before the tree is shaken again ;-? > > Bill > >
