After rc1, rc2, rc3 it's the *final* stable 1.0.9 beta ;-) Explanation: The word "beta" is required for legal reasons. According to the JSF spec license we must not omit it and are not allowed to officially call our releases *final* until we have successfully passed Sun's TCK. -Manfred
On 4/13/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Manfred Geiler wrote: > > > Final release 1.0.9beta is only a question of hours now. After > > 1.0.9beta? I thought it was 1.0.9 Final, no? > > In any case, +1 from the peanut gallery for moving to SVN before doing any > reorganising. > > -- > Martin Cooper > > > > publication will be the best time to finally move our repository out > > of the incubator. > > We have already discussed and voted about the SVN issue, but there are > > some new and changed circumstances and I would like to find out if > > there are still committers who have serious objection against SVN. > > Cons: > > - IntelliJ users still do not have integrated SVN support. > > Pros: > > - SVN is the new repository technology for ASF. At the long term all > > Apache projects should have moved to SVN. So it's unwritten common > > sense that new top level projects should start with SVN from the > > beginning. > > - As you know, SVN is able to keep history for renamed and moved files > > and dirs. Just now we are discussing some serious structural changes > > (subprojects, sandbox, etc.) If we do that now in CVS we would loose > > valuable history for many files. > > - TortoiseSVN is a powerful alternative for all IntelliJ users in the > > meantime. > > > > So here is my definite > > +1 for switching from CVS to Subversion > > > > -Manfred > > >
