Hetz Ben Hamo wrote
>> Monday March 18th, 2002: Preparing RC 3
>>
>>    3.0 RC3 tarballs are made and uploaded, which incorporate the CVS
>>    changes since RC2 tarballs. Remaining showstoppers are identified.
>>
>> Thursday March 21th, 2002: Decision about 3.0 final
>
>Wouldn't it be a good idea to have another public beta?
>
>last few days there were pretty scare in the amounts of bugs that were f=
ound
>and fixed, and most distributions aim to put KDE 3.0 as the default desk=
top
>enviroments and the last thing we need to have is a problematic release =
(you
>never know what a bored end-user will descover...)

After RC1, we discovered a whole lot of new bugs -- and fixed them. This=20
hasn't happened with RC2, which should be an indication that the code is=20
already stabler.

But I agree we should have a public release. What I just don't agree is t=
hat=20
it should be a beta. Maybe we can publicly release the RC3 (i.e., tell=20
Slashdot, because the tarballs are public already).  The fresh new pairs =
of=20
eyes will surely report bugs.

The question, then, is what to do. Those bugs will also be public, which =
would=20
mean we would have to fix them, not put back to 3.0.1.

/me realises he didn't come to a conclusion :-)

Just my 0.13F (0.02 euro)
--=20
  Thiago Macieira - UFOT Registry number: 1001
 thiagom@mail.com
   ICQ UIN: 1967141  PGP: 0x8F2978D5 and 0xEA9037A5 (PGP 2.x)
     Registered Linux user #65028