Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Um, no. We don't have release candidates. You followed the documented
procedures correctly - you aren't the confused one. =) -- justin
Sorry, Justin. I just reviewed the Guidelines, and they are, simply, wrong.
"Email dev@httpd.apache.org, current-testers@httpd.apache.org and
stable-testers@httpd.apache.org to inform them of the release."
Uhm, this is not proper, there is no -release-. You might email dev@, and
(now) testers@ to inform them of a candidate, but not of a release, as there
is NO release without a vote.
"At this point, the release is an alpha. The Apache HTTP Server Project has
three classifications for its releases:
* Alpha
* Beta
* General Availability (GA)
Alpha indicates that the release is not meant for mainstream usage or may
have serious problems that prohibits its use. When a release is initially
created, it automatically becomes alpha quality."
Wrong on a single count. There is NO alpha until there is a vote. This was
the policy THROUGHOUT the tags of 2.0.n - we voted that a tarball was alpha,
then voted it beta. At 2.0.36 or so we voted it GA, but again, every "Release"
was voted on.
You know full well the ASF calls NOTHING a release that does not have its
endorsement, and the only way to obtain that endorsement is 3 +1's.
Until it has 3 +1's, it's nothing but a snapshot, pure and simple.
