On Thu, February 16, 2006 10:34 am, Joe Germuska said: > If people agree with some of the recent concerns about the API, like > the naming and responsibility of the ActionContext class, then they > could vote to mark the release merely Alpha -- but that doesn't mean > there shouldn't be a release.
The one problem I see with this is that many people are not going to take into consideration the release mechanism, they are simply going to see a new version of Struts and jump on it. Especially as long as it has been since the last version, I think people will be more inclined to do that. Thinking more about the security issues, regardless of what severity you ascribe to them, I think this potentially does a disservice to the user community. Joe makes a good point... I have no problem with a 1.3 release per se, indeed I was pushing for it some weeks ago, but properly labeling it is very important IMO. To me, a "beta" denotes a release that you believe is ready for GA, and you just want to get feedback to confirm that. "alpha" denotes that you believe there probably are problems yet to be resolved. In that light, what Joe said makes sense, the vote should be for "alpha". Does that make sense to anyone? The bottom line to me is there are some outstanding issues yet to be resolved one way or another, and I would want to be careful of giving people the wrong impression about the release, so an alpha mark becomes more important with that in mind. > Joe > -- > Joe Germuska > [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://blog.germuska.com > > "You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and > even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new." > -- Robert Moog > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
