>>>>> "GAVH" == G Armour Van Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
GAVH> Therefore, I quickly scan messages related to 2.1b3 and
GAVH> occasionally lust after one or more features, but I'm not
GAVH> installing it. Are you suggesting now that 2.1 can be put in
GAVH> production?
It's already being used in production in many places, so I think it's
generally pretty stable. I do think some shaking out still needs to
happen before I can give it full endorsement. But that's why it's
still beta! :)
GAVH> What I'm hearing is that 2.1b3 seems actually to be running
GAVH> for a lot of folks, some of them clearly with much larger
GAVH> installations than mine. If that's the case, why don't you
GAVH> roll it out?
Darn good idea! :)
GAVH> Obviously you still have the ability to issue
GAVH> patches, as you continue to do with 2.0. Personally, I'd
GAVH> just as soon upgrade to 2.1 as to make the final leap from
GAVH> 2.0.12 with the 2.0.13 candidate patch to the actual
GAVH> 2.0.13. I'm brave enough for that, I think.
GAVH> But not until you say so!
I think we're really close. There will definitely be a beta4 RSN, but
I don't think it will be too much longer. Nobody wants MM2.1 out the
door more than me!
-Barry
------------------------------------------------------
Mailman-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
