On Dec 14, 2011, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > 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. >
So to make sure I'm clear, what is your recommendation? Another beta or just drop 2.4.0?
