We might have to agree to disagree. I believe a beta vote is warranted when someone believes the code is ready for testing outside of the development group. Personally, I am not in favor of passing a set of bits straight to GA without a beta cycle, especially when a release series hasn't seen a GA release yet. The term "General Availability" should mean that we feel it is ready for us by the general public, not just that we were able to use it ourselves. Of course, other PMC members may have different viewpoints.
Remember, voting beta now is not the final disposition. It simply means that we can announce the release to the user list and encourage wider testing. If the reports come back joyful, then we can decide to apply the GA stamp. In the meantime, we can continue to roll new releases. I'd be happy to run one every week or two, so long as there is something to put into the notes :) -Ted. On 2/6/07, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I disagree; you shouldn't vote beta just because you haven't ran the code in production. A beta vote should be reserved for the case where you don't believe the quality is at the level of a GA release, and there should be specific issues you can point to that you feel need to be resolved first. If you have downloaded the release, ran it through whatever tests you deem appropriate, and it passes with flying colors, then a GA vote is warranted. Don Ted Husted wrote: > Beta is also an option :) > > On 2/6/07, Ian Roughley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> +0 for GA. I have some testing code that looks good, but no production >> code that has been converted. >> >> /Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
