Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/09/2003 11:15:51 AM: > My concern is calling something RC1 then making changes to the way things > work that could break other people's stuff before 1.0.
I'm not planning (and I didn't think the roadmap had) any new features atm, especially after you moved them :-) > Also, calling something RC1 before we really consider it worthy of that is > probably not great. I'm ok with it being called a last beta if you prefer. > Also, I'm not sure 1.0 is the next jump after RC1. 1.0-final should be > 1.0-RC2 and nothing scheduled for 1.0 yet. There are 39 bugs against > 1.0-final (and as far as I can tell these are now all bugs, no features). > I'm pretty sure that if we fix all of them, then release, new ones will be > introduced. That's life. I'm not aiming to release bug free software. It's impossible given the unit test coverage we have. > Not that it all matters, its just version naming - but might as well stick > to conventions. The Struts 1.1 cycle annoyed me no-end. Significant features > seemed to appear between the RC and the final :) Ok, anyone else have a view. I'm +0 on the RC1/beta11 call. > As for me, I've got Friday night/Saturday to spare and work on stuff. I can > look at the memory leak again, but my time is probably spent on things I'm > more familiar with. As I understand it, Jason is still in the drivers seat > for fixing the leak? Nope, it's with me at the moment. I've had one go and realised I don't know enough about how goals are attained, so I went back and read Werkz. I've had a hell of a week, and will have lots more time coming up. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
