Roy T.Fielding wrote:
This is exactly what I said I would do in the [vote] thread for 2.1.10.
No, it isn't -- you said that it was a vote to release 2.1.10. I assumed
that meant you were going to bump the version number in CVS. There were
several people who said they were +1 on 2.1.10 and NOT 2.2.0, and our
voting guidelines have never allowed a release vote to take place before
the release was even prepared.
Well, there were enough votes that 2.1.10 was GA quality, and 2.1.x will never
be GA, I believe most of the community understood that as 'graduating' 2.1 to
2.2 (with the appropriate patches and vote on the final 2.2.0 package).
The transition to 2.2.0 couldn't happen without a vote, and I believe that Paul
called for that vote close-to-properly.
Those of us voting against 2.2.0 from his 2.1.10 tag were, I believe, outvoted,
and new version/releases can't be vetoed.
But if 2.2.0 fails to pass muster, note that the next package will be 2.2.1,
with 2.2.0 unreleased (perhaps a good thing for folks who avoid .zeros.)
Bill
