On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 16:05 -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote: > --On Friday, March 30, 2007 3:24 PM -0700 Frank Cusack > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> This is why I'm still using 0.99. The RC's still look like betas and I > >> have no idea which one (if any) is less a regression than any other. > > > > They ARE betas. That's no reason to stay with 0.99. It's effectively > > beta as well. > > In principle, a "release candidate" should be a gamma. It should be > effectively ready for release, and distributed to check for awful > show-stoppers. > > Is 1.0rc29 stable enough to replace 0.99 from Fedora? Will I suddenly have > a bunch of angry users seeing things break?
It is stable enough. I've been using it in production, and each RC, with no issues. Really damn good software. > > 1.0.rc1 was released in June. Here's a quote from the release message for > rc11 (November 4): > > > Hopefully the last RC release? As far as I know there are no major > > problems left now. If nothing big shows up, v1.0 should be out in a > > couple of weeks. > > In rc27: > > > A few new small features and lots of index/mbox fixes. I've been heavily > > stress testing this release, so I think it should be about perfect. :) > > *Features*?! In an rc?! No wonder there's no convergence. > Oddly, the new features don't seem to act up. Just little issues keep coming up.
