On March 30, 2007 4:05:55 PM -0700 Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 3:24 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is why I'm still using 0.99. The RC's still look like betas and I
have no idea which one (if any) is less a regression than any other.
They ARE betas. That's no reason to stay with 0.99. It's effectively
beta as well.
In principle, a "release candidate" should be a gamma. It should be
effectively ready for release, and distributed to check for awful
show-stoppers.
Is 1.0rc29 stable enough to replace 0.99 from Fedora? Will I suddenly
have a bunch of angry users seeing things break?
Will 1.0 be stable enough to replace 0.99?
You are going to have to do the exact same testing from 0.99->1.0 as
you would from 0.99->1.0rc29. Caveat emptor with open source software;
the responsibility is upon YOU to do your own testing.
It sounds to me like the reason you are running 0.99 is not because of
any "rc" naming and/or lack of stability, it is because Fedora ships
with 0.99. So you should just wait until Fedora updates it and not
worry about the fact that the "rc" releases are misnamed.
So please, no more features in these rc's! Just lock it down and ship it
and let people get some experience with it, so I'll know exactly what to
expect when *I* install it.
People ARE getting experience with the rc's. That's why there's so many
of them: feedback.
Why do you care anyway? (Not attacking you.) If 0.99 works for you,
great!
-frank
