On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 14:18, Hyrum K Wright <hy...@hyrumwright.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> >> wrote: >>> On 06/15/2011 12:36 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >>>> I would also request that should the serf issues be resolved during >>>> our stabilization period, that we ship with the default as serf. ie. >>>> don't toss it because it may miss the branchpoint by a couple days >>>> (trying to avoid that, tho!) >>> >>> Sure, no sweat. It's not really until we're close to rolling RC1 that we >>> need to make the go/no-go call on Serf as the default. >> >> I don't envision at lot of time between the branch and the first >> release candidate for any serf stabilization to occur. I suppose we >> could roll a beta shortly after the branch, and then start the RC >> train a couple weeks after that, though. > > I was assuming that we would have a beta. > > I dunno what kind of review the alpha is getting. Moving it to "beta" > would get more users. Of course, we still wouldn't know what kind of > review it is getting, but I would say "more" :-)
Given that the most common distinction between alpha and beta is "feature complete" I have been arguing all along that the existing "alpha" release should have been labelled "beta". I would be +1 on changing that for the next release before we branch. FWIW, while I want to see is move towards RC, I am OK with waiting for Serf fixes as long as someone will standup for each bug and say they have the time to fix it and perhaps give a rough estimate of how long we should wait. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
