On 13/03/2010, at 11:25 AM, Deng Ching wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Wendy Smoak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Deng Ching <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The Continuum 1.3.6 release candidate has been staged. >>> This release includes 16 fixes. You can take a look at the release notes >>> here: >> >> +1 to release it, it's working fine for me. I downloaded all the >> distribution binaries and checked signatures, then expanded the >> tarball on OS X and gave the default config a run through and set up >> distributed build with two agents, which also worked. >> >> We need to decide on the quality. >> >> While I very much want to get 1.3.x over with and I _am_ using it in >> production, there are still some issues that I would not be thrilled >> to see in a GA release (mainly in distributed build). :/ What do >> others think? >> > > I agree, there are a number of bugs in distributed builds which I think > needs to be fixed for a GA release like the problem where some builds are > being built in the wrong agent.. > > Should we label 1.3.6 as a Beta release? >
Well I guess we already have :) However, I'm confused because we've already had this discussion: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/continuum-dev/201002.mbox/%[email protected]%3e Wendy, Deng - please name the issues you are referring to. We can at least document some limitations if we can't resolve them. At this point, I think perhaps we should rename 1.4.0 as 1.3.7 (GA), and move to trunk (removing the continuum-1.3.x branch). There are 23 fixes on trunk, some that have been there for a year, that aren't getting released because we can't seem to decide to end the 1.3 cycle. Would others be ok with that? Thanks, Brett -- Brett Porter [email protected] http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
