On 2/9/07, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
robert burrell donkin schrieb:
> On 2/9/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1 to http://www.apache.org/dist/james/jspf/beta/
>>
>> not "unstable"
>
> FWIW i've had bad experiences after dubbing releases (of this kind)
> 'beta'. i now strongly recommend using the 0.x convention (since it
> more accurately conveys the intent).
>
> - robert
>
We had some "discussion" about that in the past. Noel told us that we
should use the beta label if remember right. He argue that there are a
lot of "stable" projects out there which never reach the 1.x version number.
the problem is that beta is a term that's used with widely varying
meanings and so releasing a beta targeted at users (rather than
developers) tends to produce confusion about which version users are
supposed to download. on occasion, i've been asked questions about
beta that i thought were dead years ago. betas often given dependency
management software difficulties as well.
i now use beta's only for developer releases now
Btw, im happy with the label or without it.
the beta designation was the one voted for and you should keep that label
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
