I agree with Massimo's sentiments. -- Kevin
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:07 AM, Massimo Lusetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:49 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? > > If no such a big bugs comes out from that three weeks from 5.0.16 that > sound reasonable. > > BTW three weeks are a nice period for a release to be fully used and i > don't feel that to be too long. > > Regards > -- > Massimo > http://meridio.blogspot.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
