On Apr 24, 2006, at 9:15 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/24/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Tbh, I'm -0.5 on this. It's complex enough as it is trying to get releases out, and 1.3 hasn't even tagged yet.My concern is that issuing three announcements in the span of one week is *very* confusing to our users. Either 2.0 and 1.3 get bundled with the 2.2 announcement, or we shouldn't announce those releases at all.
How about, we lead with 2.2.2, and note in the announcement that 2.0 and 1.3 releases should be available later this week. This goes out to the Slashdots etc. of this world. When 2.0 and 1.3 are ready, we can update the website but not send out a release announcement.
For 2.0, we probably should re-roll 2.0.58 with the copyright statement reversion and take a new vote-1, there's been enough back and forth on this. The current status is that the existing candidate is good for release unless people start reverting their +1's, which so far - has not happened.As I have stated before, I believe it's completely inappropriate for us to be releasing files with bogus copyright years. We have been explicitly informed by ASF officers and counsel that placing incorrect copyright years on files is something that we should not be doing. I really don't know how much clearer this issue can be. -- justin
I will revert my vote so we can have a re-roll. Re-rolling today should allow us to release 1.3 and 2.0 concurrently, at least.
S. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.temme.net/sander/ PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
