Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 12482 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jun 2000 14:18:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 12439 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 14:18:53 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: koj.rkbloom.net: rbb owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 07:19:13 -0700 (PDT) From: rbb@covalent.net X-Sender: rbb@koj.rkbloom.net To: new-httpd@apache.org, trawick@ibm.net Subject: Re: Land a Man on the Moon In-Reply-To: <200006261328.JAA03252@k5.localdomain> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > > Who says yes? Who says no? > > I'm in *general* agreement, though personally I prefer something like this: > > . release a 2.0 "release candidate" at the beginning of AC2K-E > . take every opportunity to evangelize the release candidate among > the attendees in hopes of getting a higher level of deployment than > achieved with the betas (hopefully on more production servers) > . release 2.0 a month or so later > > Nothing can ever be perfect, but we might be able to squeeze a few > more bugs out this way, lowering the risk of a bad rep for 2.0. A bad > rep can mean a big slowdown in deployment. Set our goals high, and don't be afraid to fail at them. Set the goal at "releasing the official 2.0 at AC Europe", if we miss so what. Apache hasn't historically done release candidates. Those are our betas. As we get close to actually releasing the code, we roll a tarball and just release it. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------