Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 29695 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2004 15:25:58 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Jan 2004 15:25:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 87395 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jan 2004 15:25:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 87329 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jan 2004 15:25:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 87300 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2004 15:25:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO confixx.bestiole.ch) (66.111.0.243) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Jan 2004 15:25:43 -0000 Received: from apache.org (lsn-boi-catv-c121-p001.vtx.ch [212.147.121.1]) by confixx.bestiole.ch (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0UFPcP31878 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:25:38 +0100 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:25:48 +0100 Subject: Re: Releasing 2.1.4? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) From: Bertrand Delacretaz To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <401A5C75.2010201@leverageweb.com> Message-Id: <948B615E-5338-11D8-82F9-000393CFE402@apache.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Le Vendredi, 30 jan 2004, =E0 14:30 Europe/Zurich, Geoff Howard a =E9crit = : >> On 30.01.2004 10:54, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >>> ...I propose the 12th of february >>> as the release date for 2.1.4 - regardless if we have solved all >>> the open issues (RORE - Release often, release early). >>> >>> WDYAT? >> +1 > > +1 - The 1.3 runtime incompatibility recently reported should be a=20 > blocker though (not sure if it's in bugzilla or not). Still, I'd say=20= > it could be fixed by then. +1, also for the 1.3 problem. -Bertrand