On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:27:12 -0300, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:42:58 -0300, Kalle Korhonen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> What in particular makes 5.3.0 unstable? Just because it's the first >>> of 5.3 line or because it's the latest or do you have a specific >>> concern? >> I recall Howard having mentioned 5.3.0 being an alpha or beta for the 5.3 >> version. If I'm mistaken, I'm sorry for the confusion . . . > I was right: 5.3.0 is the first alpha, so it's not what I'd call a stable > (i.e. production-ready) release.
I.e. it's just because it's the first release of 5.3 line. "Alpha" is in the eye of a beholder, isn't it? Lots and lots of internals have changed, but from my experience 5.3.0 is much less an alpha than 5.0.10 was. Many people have been tracking the 5.3.0-SNAPSHOT for months so it's not like it hasn't gotten any field testing. But the point I'm trying to make is this: for a new project, would you not recommend everybody to start using 5.3.0 even if it's considered unstable? For an existing project, would you upgrade to 5.3.0 right away? For the former, I'd say absolutely yes, and for the latter, I'd upgrade when I needed to, and I'd bet that the majority would see it the same way. It's a framework, not an end-user application, so "production-ready" depends on your needs. Perhaps the better question: is 5.3.0 development-ready? I'd say yes. Kalle --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
