I'm fine with either rc1 and beta9 for the next release. I slightly prefer
rc1: agree with Nick that rc1 may elicit more usage.
On Saturday, August 31, 2013, Nick Williams wrote:
> I will that I do agree that this release shouldn't be GA. I also agree
> with Ralph that I believe the following release should target GA.
>
> However, I'll repeat what I said sometime last month that got shot down,
> because I believe in it. I don't think this release should be beta9. I
> believe it should be rc1.
>
> This may not be the case for all users, but it is for some: users tend to
> be a lot more willing to try out release candidate software than software
> with "beta" in the name. I know, many of us (including me) feel that Log4j
> has been release candidate-quality for some time now. I'm not disputing
> that. But it's a mental block. Some users just won't try something that
> says "beta" in it, no matter what /we/ say beta means.
>
> If we really, /really/ want as many people as possible to try out this
> release so that GA is as stable and complete as possible, I think it should
> be rc1 and not beta9. Worst case scenario: the same number of people try
> it. Best case: more people try it. Isn't that what we want?
>
> Nick
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't release beta9. I'm suggesting that we target
> the following release as GA, provided we fix everything we believe is
> required for a GA release.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Gary Gregory
> <garydgreg...@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'garydgreg...@gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers
> <rgo...@apache.org<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'rgo...@apache.org');>
> > wrote:
>
>> Well, I was going to ask what needs to be done to get to a GA release -
>> I'd prefer there not be a beta10 if it isn't required. I do think the OSGi
>> stuff needs to be addressed for that but I am not sure what else. From a
>> timing perspective I think this is about the time we were shooting for to
>> release so I am OK with that.
>>
>
> I know it takes cycles to spin a beta (and I've not been doing them, thank
> you Ralph! ;) but I look at it the other way around. Why not spin another
> beta? It seems like a good time, we have *loads* of bug fixes in and some
> new features IRRC, and at least one large hump to go over OSGi. Just
> sayin... ;)
>
> Gary
>
>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Gary Gregory
>> <garydgreg...@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>> 'garydgreg...@gmail.com');>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>> I wonder if we should release the next beta9 now and then all focus on
>> OSGi the best we can.
>>
>> This would let us push out a lot of fixes and make beta10 all about OSGi.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>> 'garydgreg...@gmail.com');> | ggreg...@apache.org <javascript:_e({},
>> 'cvml', 'ggreg...@apache.org');>
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second
>> Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'garydgreg...@gmail.com');> | ggreg...@apache.org <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'ggreg...@apache.org');>
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second
> Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
