According to Roy T. Fielding:
> And, personally, I have always hated the stupid alpha/beta/GA distinction.
> Our release process became constipated on the day that was added.
I tend to agree.
And our users get (or area already) confused by this release process.
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht
* On 2002-02-04 at 22:07,
Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
>
> After the group spends enough time pounding on a release to call it GA,
> there is no reason why we cannot take the code and reversion it a 2.1.0
> and start treating that as the stable branch. It m
> I know that there have been lots of changes in .32-dev since .31 was
> tagged that have challenged the stability of the current tree. If
> we took .32 and made it as close to .31 as we could but with the
> *minimum* required changes to make .32, we could be close to a real
> beta. (This seems
