On 12/14/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the > main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't > have any "real" concept of Release Candidates.
I like it that way, and see no reason to change, especially not now that we are approaching such a significant milestone. If 2.4.0 didn't work, burn it and move on to 2.4.1. We certainly can call 2.4.0 an alpha, beta or GA release. -0.9 on adopting an RC approach. We do this for our day jobs. That isn't the point of ASF methodology.
