If 5.0.17 can sit out there for at least one week (out of the N weeks), I think that would be good enough --just to feel safe that no new blocking bugs are unintentionally introduced. Critical bugs on edge cases can and will come up in the future. At this point I think you are just being nice by doing 5.0.17.
Daniel Jue On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Looks like there's a couple of nits in 5.0.16. My intention is to > build a 5.0.17 to collect the couple of critical bug fixes. I don't > see what we'll need to restart the "GA exposure period"; I think the > three weeks (*) should start from 5.0.16. In other words, I would > like (when its ready) a single vote for 5.0.17 to make it public and > make it the GA release. Does this seem reasonable? > > The point is, the RC is working: bugs are being fleshed out. What > we're trying to accomplish with the RC is determine if the release > voted GA is truly free of (blocker) bugs. My contention is that the > experience from 5.0.16 combined with a couple of bug fixes should be > as sufficient as voting up 5.0.17 and waiting another N weeks. > > (*) Three weeks is arbitrary. Is it long enough or too long? > > -- > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
