Trying to be nice here...  :)

1.  I agree, if we were more involved and in-touch with what is really going on..  I bet you would find more willing participants.    It's ready when it's ready isn't exactly going to get people involved so they can see the progress or willing to help.

2.  Really shouldn't blame the end users when the product website isn't running the release.

3.  Medium to large changes should not be made AFTER an RC and then release it without another RC.   That's common sense.   The complete opposite happened.

I'm surprised to see the blame being shifted or even partially shifted.   Same point over and over, what upgrade test cases have been run before release (by the core team)?   Don't forget too that the entire schedule for 5.0 is so far off and you get your head knocked if you ask what's going on.  Development is top secret, communication minute and openness non-existent.  Then we get the blame for not testing RC's?

Well a "Release Candidate" clearly indicates that the release is "imminent". So that was very clear notice that it was going to happy "real soon", specially with an RC2. I can't see how anyone could have been caught by surprise! If anyone ever meant to test, clearly when an RC is announced, that's the last chance to still test!

On the other hand, as the word RELEASE candidate implies: Development has been wrapped up, database structures are final, the product is finshed, no more functions are being added, no show-stoppers are still open. It's candidate for release, in fact, it might just require a change in version number - but the vendor wants to just make sure nothing was overlooked in the final packaging. Now - considering all the changes that were made AFTER RC2, the "release" 5.0.0, clearly was NOT a release of RC2. RC2 never was a "release candidate" as obvious the development had not been finalized to the point where it could possibly have been "candiate for release" yet.

My point is: RC1 and 2 were mislabeled - they were still Betas (work in progress). 5.0.0 is the first RC that deserves that label - and 5.0.1 will be the first "release"

What prevented me from testing was the fact that NO upgrade path was offered from RC2 to the release. I had a new portal project to set up, I really WANTED to set it up under 5.0-RC2 and thus give it a good test and release the site once 5.0.0 was released. But, when I read that I would have to discard all my work and were expected to start from scratch under 5.0.0, it precluded me from going that route.
I don't mind testing, setting up a parallel environment, investing time to convert portals over into a "staging" area, but I can't put time into setting up sites once and then be expected to discard that and start all over when the release comes out. And I see no point testing unless it's a "real-life" project - simulations will not find the errors that real-life usage will raise. By the time something is declared RC1, RC2,... the database structure better be solid and while technically not ready for production, it should "upgrade" to the final release.

Best Regards,

Andy