On 12/15/2011 8:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > 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?
Either/both. My point was that 2.4.0 can follow the usual voting pattern of Cast your vote that 2.4.0 is [ ] Alpha [ ] Beta [ ] GA. We don't need five RC's of 2.4.0 before a real 2.4.0. If there are 2.4.0 - .4 which all amount to alpha/beta approval before 2.4.5 is GA, there is nothing wrong with continuing in our usual pattern.
