-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule? Do we need two more betas?
I know I'm contradicting what I said earlier, but perhaps we should just forget going back to beta and stick to ever-more-perfect release candidates? In other worlds release candidates often contain tons of imperfections (I believe I've seen this both for Java and Windows) and the label "release candidate" more clearly encourages people to download and play with it, which is what we need at this point! Then the schedule would be something like
15-Oct-2008 3.0 rc 2 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 4 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
I'm okay with that too. It does seem odd to go back to beta then release another rc. What's in a name, anyway? <wink>. And it is good that more people are downloading it now that it's rc. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSOvb93EjvBPtnXfVAQJTQAP/cmNdzd/SRymxXvW85EnW2NTHUkh1Auw9 bGlbSC0BF2p9ArgbDLPh/X4uatB3UaqoNeq5LTWHL2f9iCnsI7lFMPuexGr+3t4l Xmld8qN77j4GpU6bXL8uUo3/vlhU4MiG5ETl0kMH30f47srOAAGEGZAqW9jAM92I YSkQPSgBdYo= =+s9t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----