On 11/28/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/28/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip/> > > Follow up comment on something I missed (and will apply to Rahul's digester > release candidate as well). Are you planning on respinning the bits with > the correct version number (1.3.1 instead of 1.3.1-RC1) before the actual > vote? I prefer to vote on the real bits for an actual release. > <snap/>
Having misread the question, I answered in the affirmative. I read it as -- are you planning on respinning before the actual release -- rather than "actual vote". For example, that was the vote for validator 1.3.1. -Rahul
Yes, thats how its done. However, it needs to change, IMO. We could up the version numbers when it comes time to vote and point to the exact set of bits in the vote (but leave the tagging to until the vote passes -- assumes the "release workflow" to be 1 or more RCs followed by 1 or more votes). The m2 equivalent of staging. -Rahul > Craig >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
