Unfortunately, a BETA label doesn't help anybody. The purpose of the release is to help production systems and they generally don't allow any BETA jars. And yes, I was able to test the release to my satisfaction, having been using the stable branch for some time.
I agree with Antonio that a 2.0.8.1 would have been more appropriate and less risky. Then, we know the only change from a GA-approved release was the security fix, which has already undergone considerable scrutiny. Don On 7/29/07, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's merit to both sides of the argument, but I believe both have > their excesses too. For "emergency" security releases only, a middle > ground would be to release immediately after 3+1 votes, but not higher > than a BETA grade. This will allow (1) publishing to the Maven repo for > immediate consumption but (2) the opportunity to withdraw a non-GA > release if, for some reason, a surprising veto happens to the way the > patch was implemented. If after 72 hours, it's still +3 and more than > the -1 votes, then just re-brand as GA and be happy. > > Paul > > Don Brown wrote: > > While I suppose consulting the PMC would have been appropriate, I > disagree > > all votes, no matter what, should be open for 72 hours. In this case, a > > severe security fix release, we should allow a shorter time. Perhaps > that > > would be 12 or 18 hours, but certainly no more than 24. Just because > the > > fix took a few days to arrive doesn't mean we can afford to waste > another 3 > > days just for process' sake. > > > > Don > > > > On 7/28/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On 7/23/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >>> In the interest of time, I would like to declare a quality grade on > >>> Struts 2.0.9 AS SOON AS we have received three binding votes toward > >>> one of the grades, and NOT WAIT the usual 72 hours! > >>> > >> </snip> > >> > >> I only just saw this - so basically this vote was effectively > >> concluded 52minutes after the test build was announced and vote called > >> (since thats when the 3rd +1 binding vote was received). > >> > >> I am -1 to holding votes in this way (i.e. as soon as I get 3 +1s) and > >> I am -1 to one person arbiatrily changing the usual procedure on the > >> fly at the point a vote is called. IMO all votes should be for a fixed > >> period of time (usually 72 hours). In this case I don't see why the > >> PMC could not have been consulted about reducing the period of time on > >> this vote - since AFAIK this issue has been ongoing for more than a > >> couple of weeks. > >> > >> Niall > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
