WIll 0.9.3 be considered to be out of alpha when it is released?

I've been watching this project with great interest for quite a while, thogh 
I'm a little scared to use alpha code.

Josh.

On June 11, 2003 11:45 pm, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> APRUTIL LIBRARY STATUS:						-*-text-*-
> Last modified at [$Date: 2003/03/31 05:32:43 $]
>
> Release:
>
>     0.9.3   : Tagged March 30, 2002
>     0.9.2   : Released March 22, 2002      (alpha)
>     0.9.1   : Released September 11, 2002  (alpha)
>     0.9.0   : Not released
>
>     2.0a9   : released December 12, 2000
>
>
> RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
>
> RELEASE NON-SHOWSTOPPERS BUT WOULD BE REAL NICE TO WRAP THESE UP:
>
>     * Solaris's Sun Freeware (sfw) package has a busted gcc/ld setup.
>       This gcc passes -L/opt/sfw/lib to /usr/ccs/bin/ld, but does not
>       pass -R.  Therefore, when trying to run the code using a
>       library from /opt/sfw/lib (say, libdb), the run-time linker
>       will not look in /opt/sfw/lib and the program will die.
>         Status: Workaround is to add "-R/opt/sfw/lib" to LDFLAGS.
>                 Should check latest sfw package set and see if Sun
>                 may have fixed this.
>
>     * GDBM usage of errno is not-thread-safe.  Fix.
>
> Other bugs that need fixing:
>
>
>
> Other features that need writing:
>
>     * possibly move test/testdbm* to util/dbu
>       Justin says: Do we still want to do this?  testdate is now in test.
>       Status: Greg +1 (volunteers)
>
> Documentation that needs writing:
>
>     * API documentation
>         Status:
>
>     * doc the lifetimes of apr_dbm return values
>
>
> Available Patches:
>
>
> Open Issues: