On 10/23/05, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) 2.1.N is voted on for BETA.
3) Assuming the vote passes, several days after releasing 2.1.N-BETA, a
vote to mark 2.1.N-BETA as Stable/General Availability will be called
for by the 2.1.N Release Manager.
3 days is maybe enough time to
I agree with Jeff. The time between Beta and GM should ideally by
longer that several days (depending on how you define
several :) ).
With 2.2, we should consider such terms as release candidate
and make things easier for us and the community as well.
So the process is:
-dev - Beta - RC - GA
Jim Jagielski said:
With 2.2, we should consider such terms as release candidate
and make things easier for us and the community as well.
So the process is:
-dev - Beta - RC - GA
+1.
Regards,
Graham
--
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 06:18:09PM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
Thoughts/Concerns?
Can the PMC ask infra to make /docs-2.2/ work? The redirect needs
explicit exclusions.
There are quite a few instances of httpd 2.1 in the docs tree right
now, including explicit links to
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 08:52:35AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
3 days is maybe enough time to catch a couple of build issues that we
didn't see, but not anything else. I don't see the value in making a
big deal about it to the general public if the thing is likely to be
GA before there is time
As we get closer to the next stable/GA branch, I want to clarify with
everyone how I imagine the process will happen. This isn't the process
that is documented in VERSIONING, but I think it deals better with the
2.1.x - 2.2.0 jump.
1) 2.1.N is tagged.
2) 2.1.N is voted on for BETA.
3)
