At 07:40 PM 8/30/2005, Paul Querna wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> So -1 here from the peanut gallery on beta for this candidate, >> simply because most devs didn't feel strongly enough to endorse >> this beta over the last week+. Let's see if we can't find a >> candidate that folks endorse more strongly. > >So, this is a -1 not on technical reasons, but because other people >haven't voted on it? I disagree on that kind of reason for a -1 vote.
First; vote +/- 1 on a release need not be technical, is _never_ a veto, and If we are going to release a beta, we have to *support* the beta. If folks aren't voting, will they be supporting the problem reports that come in? My *biggest* concerns before we announce beta again *to the world* are that; * we need a 2.0 -> 2.2 document. What changed? What do I have to change in my httpd.conf? What's known to break? (As opposed to the existing CHANGES of what is now 'unbroken'). * we need internal testers, who are obviously testing the candidates thoroughly and promptly (voting soon after some candidate is proposed.) We state "2.n.n is the BEST AVAILABLE VERSION" (italics mine) - and it damned well better be :) * we need folks to comb bugzilla for the new reports coming in once the beta is announced, and help fix. We have a few new committers so this will get easier. (FYI - if you are an occasional contributor, all it takes is posts to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] discussing and proposing patches over an extended period of time to become a committer. The project is looking for committers who help with multiple interests and who show an overall interest in the health of the httpd project.) * we are prepared to go GA within 6-8 weeks. It's pointless if the code isn't that far along. Calling it an alpha, beta, or a quadrangle is worthless if we aren't investing the effort to elicit every available tester, and if we aren't giving them the resources they need to help *US* get it right :) Let's move on, 2.1.7 already collected dust. Bill
