Re: 2.0.24 ready for beta?

[Joshua Slive]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> Like I said before, I'm still +1 for 2.0.24 for beta on Unix.  I don't
> much like the idea of calling it a beta only on Unix, but I won't veto the
> idea.

I'm +1 for a 2.0.24 beta as well.  I'm +1 for beta for anything that
a) compiles
b) has no known security problems
c) has significantly less bugs than 2.0.16.

I think 2.0.24 qualifies.

Joshua.