Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:24 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> > Hi all.
>> >
>> > I've been a bit out of the loop for the past few days, but it looks like
>> > STATUS is pretty empty, and has been for a while. If there aren't any
>> > objections, I'd like to roll *beta* 1 tomorrow evening.
>> >
>> > I know some people may feel we should call this an RC, and if that's
>> > what folks want it's fine by me. I personally feel that we still have a
>> > couple of unresolved issues ('log -g', for instance) which warrant
>> > calling this a beta, rather than an RC.
>> >
>> > Anyway, please get your fixes into 1.5.x by Wednesday evening [it'll be
>> > late, I'm on the (US) West Coast right now.]
>>
>> If I can't fix issue 3118, I too will oppose the notion of this being an RC.
>> I'm debugging as fast as I can!
>
> I think waiting for known issues that are actively being worked on
> makes sense. I would just rather see us roll an RC later this week or
> next week, then do a Beta now and an RC in another 3 or more weeks. I
> do not think we will get the benefits from the Beta to warrant it.
>
> AFAIK, the only known issues being worked on for 1.5 are the issue you
> mentioned and the log -g problems that have been posted to the mailing
> list. I say we get these fixed, however long it takes, and then do an
> RC.
Sounds good.
-Hyrum
Received on 2008-03-12 15:58:55 CET