I simply have a problem with the string "rc1". For every release we do the first vote we have is for "rc 1". If the release vote fails we move on to "rc 2". In other words, an rc is a candidate for a specific version - it isn't a version itself. I can't imagine holding a vote for 2.0-rc1 rc 1, or worse 2.0-rc1 rc 2. A few other projects have done something like 2.0RC1, which is a little better. However ....
If you really think it is ready for prime time then just call it 2.0. If you don't then I would ask that we identify what issues must be addressed before we can do a 2.0 release. What will we really gain by calling it rc1. It still means you don't believe it is production ready in my mind. Ralph On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > 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> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers <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> 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 | ggreg...@apache.org >>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >>>> Spring Batch in Action >>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >>> Spring Batch in Action >>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
