On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 14:18, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>>> On 06/15/2011 12:36 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>> I would also request that should the serf issues be resolved during
>>>> our stabilization period, that we ship with the default as serf. ie.
>>>> don't toss it because it may miss the branchpoint by a couple days
>>>> (trying to avoid that, tho!)
>>> Sure, no sweat. It's not really until we're close to rolling RC1 that we
>>> need to make the go/no-go call on Serf as the default.
>> I don't envision at lot of time between the branch and the first
>> release candidate for any serf stabilization to occur. I suppose we
>> could roll a beta shortly after the branch, and then start the RC
>> train a couple weeks after that, though.
> I was assuming that we would have a beta.
> I dunno what kind of review the alpha is getting. Moving it to "beta"
> would get more users. Of course, we still wouldn't know what kind of
> review it is getting, but I would say "more" :-)
Given that the most common distinction between alpha and beta is
"feature complete" I have been arguing all along that the existing
"alpha" release should have been labelled "beta". I would be +1 on
changing that for the next release before we branch.
FWIW, while I want to see is move towards RC, I am OK with waiting for
Serf fixes as long as someone will standup for each bug and say they
have the time to fix it and perhaps give a rough estimate of how long
we should wait.
Received on 2011-06-15 20:33:35 CEST