On 1/31/06, Bernhard Slominski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag > > von Craig > > McClanahan > > > > Shale follows the same version branding policy that the rest > > of Struts does > > (along with Tomcat and some other projects). An "x.y.z" > > release is first > > issued with no "quality" metric, and is then voted on as > > being of alpha, > > beta, or general availability quality. The 1.0.0 release was > > voted to be > > alpha quality (in spite of the fact that many portions are > > more stable than > > that would imply) as a whole. > > Ok, thanks! > So are the following statements right then? > There will be a 1.0.x version which is voted for general availability > quality.
Presuming the other developers agree with that quality assessment, yes ... it's not just up to me. But in this general availability quality 1.0.x release there might be a few > "developing" APIs as well. Yes, that can be expected. Of course right now it's not possible to tell which release it is or when > this is. Not really at this point ... but feedback on that topic, as well as general usage comments, is welcome. At what feature set would users consider it complete enough to use? Would you want to wait for one or more particular features to reach "evolving" stability rankings first? Benrhard Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
