Unless I misunderstand... 2.4.30-RC1 (rejected) 2.4.30-RC2 (our .31, rejected) 2.4.30-RC3 (our .32, rejected) 2.4.30-RC4 -> 2.4.30 GA (our 2.4.33 release)
With all the associated changes in between, no actual change in branch management, scope, feature creep, etc? This sounds like dressing up the status quo with different labels. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 10:37 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> With all this in mind, should we try to set things up so that the > >> next release cycle uses the concept of RCs? > >> > >> If so, and if people like, I can come up with a baseline > >> proposal on the process for us to debate and come to > >> some consensus on. > > > > Would you define an RC? What changes are allowable in that branch? > > > The idea is that right now we take an existing state in SVN > and tag it as, for example, 2.4.121. We then vote on that tag > and the artifacts released from that tag. No work is done on > the 2.4 branch while testing is done so that we ensure that > the SVN rev on branch == the one for the tag > Not necessary to freeze; a tag can always be applied to an older rev. Instead, we tag at 2.4.121-RC1. We do the exact same. If the > vote does not pass, we continue on the 2.4 branch, fix the > issues, and then tag a 2.4.121-RC2. Rinse and repeat. > > If the vote does pass we tag the branch, which is still == RC# > at this stage, as 2.4.121 (ap_release.h mods included). We > still even at this stage test and vote on the release as we have > for decades. If it passes, we release. If not, for some reason, > we have burned the 2.4.121 release, bump to 2.4.122 and GOTO > the above. > > This is the overall idea... more flesh to be added.
