Randy McMurchy wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/31/07 19:55 CST: > >> 1. Update general.ent with the blfs-version as -rc1 (or would that be >> -beta1. I wouldn't call it a -rc until all the current tickets for >> 6.2.0 are either fixed or moved to another milestone. ). It will be a >> couple more days for me to get KDE in. >> >> 2. Make the *tag*: > > Already created. See -book. > >> We should not update a *tag*. > > Why not update a tag?
You can. You asked for opinions. > I do understand your point about the about the current tickets open, > but again, why can't we release an rc1 version with the explanation > that there are still a few open tickets that *hope* to get resolved > by the final release? > > There are some tickets (assigned or not) that I'm not certain will > be addressed before 2/14. OK. Our approaches would be a bit different, but I can live with yours. I think its just personal preference. I would not get tied to a schedule, however. If it slips a little, it slips. OTOH, I agree that we need to press to get it out. >> For final release, create a *branch* for 6.2.0 the same way and then >> change the trunk blfs-version entity back to svn. > > For final release, I'm inclined to create a tag for 6.2.0 and a > branch for 6.2.1. Again, not defending my original method, but a > branch for 6.2.0 doesn't seem right at all. Again, this should be > a tag. The *6.2.1* version is what should be a branch, as this will > be the version that all the edits in Trunk will be merged into. To me tags and branches have different meanings even though they are treated in the same way by subversion. I suppose a 6.2.1 branch is reasonable where the trunk gets updated based on LFS svn and the 6.2.1 branch gets updated based on LFS 6.2. I think that's what you are saying. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
