If the developers don't believe it's stable enough to be deployed, then I'm willing to believe them over others.
Again, I hate getting into this since it is not the first time..
Versions numbers/releases are an exceedingly poor representation of software stability or usability. I'm sure I don't need to point out examples here.
Be that as it may, as I said, I'm going to go with the developers' advice, "Note: As this is in early beta we do not suggest running SMF 2.0 RC1.2 on a production site.".
Mostly Rabbit, for being a jerk and him blaming everybody else for his own shortfalls.
So what's the issue? I've already demonstrated that I'm willing to do the legwork and stay in it for the long-hall.
True, but after thinking about it I kinda feel bad.. on one hand, it'd be nice to move some responsibility off my server; on the other, I kind of feel like I'm giving up my responsibility, which I don't like.
In any case, like I said, I'm willing to compromise and commit to a schedule -- if they don't release 2.0 by Feb 1, I'll install whatever they have. Hell, I'll even bump the day back to Dec 1 if it'll make you happy! I just want to give them some more time to have something that *they* (as opposed to *you*) consider stable and production ready.
I realize that you consider it ready, but I still think it sounds irresponsible to install something that the developers consider "an early beta", whether or not it's mostly working. Hopefully, they're in a better position to make that call than anybody else.
When I updated to 1.10, I noticed I still have a 'x86-beta' directory where I tried to install the 2.0RC1 when it was released. Good times.