On 4/24/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tbh, I'm -0.5 on this. It's complex enough as it is trying to get > releases out, and 1.3 hasn't even tagged yet.
My concern is that issuing three announcements in the span of one week is *very* confusing to our users. Either 2.0 and 1.3 get bundled with the 2.2 announcement, or we shouldn't announce those releases at all. > > For 2.0, we probably should re-roll 2.0.58 with the copyright > > statement reversion and take a new vote > > -1, there's been enough back and forth on this. The current status is > that the existing candidate is good for release unless people start > reverting their +1's, which so far - has not happened. As I have stated before, I believe it's completely inappropriate for us to be releasing files with bogus copyright years. We have been explicitly informed by ASF officers and counsel that placing incorrect copyright years on files is something that we should not be doing. I really don't know how much clearer this issue can be. -- justin
