On 15.03.2015 09:28, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 07:55AM, Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 15.03.2015 07:15, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >>> +1 >>> >>> I still recommend you not to include RC# into top-level directory name when >>> you create the zip file. RC is a logical state of the archive - not its >>> physical property. Also, earlier I commented on how the checksums will be >>> screwed if you try to re-pack the archive. >> Actually, if I see "Ignite ver. 1.0.0-rc3" printed on my screen when I >> run a program, then I do expect the -rc3 tag to be part of the source >> directory name. It is valid and reasonable practice to make a public >> release candidate. We do that at least once for every 1.x.0 release at >> Subversion: >> >> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/releasing.html#release-numbering >> >> The process we use there is: >> >> * Release 1.x.0-rc1 as a formal ASF release >> * Wait for a "soak period" (typically 4 weeks) >> o during this time, users can take the candidate for a spin and >> report any problems >> o we fix the problems, and if any of them are serious enough >> (e.g., requiring a public API change), we roll -rc2 etc. and >> restart the soak period >> >> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/svn-soak-management.png >> * Once we've decided that the release candidate is stable, we create a >> new release based on the same tag, with only one change: the -rc* >> tag is dropped from all version numbers (that's basically a one-line >> change in svn_version.h). >> >> We've found that this works extremely well to make .0 releases more stable. > I actually do agree that the described procedure is a great way to > stabilize a release. However, i was under the impression that the goal of > this exercise is to produce 1.0 release that'd be ready for IPMC vote > from release expectation stand-point, not technical merits of the project. > If i am mistaken on that - then i want to withdraw my comment.
I'll quote Dmitriy (with my emphasis): On 13.03.2015 08:25, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > I am resubmitting 1.0 RC3 for a vote having addressed comments from Cos and > Brane. /_*Note that this is a real RC, and not a 1.0 yet.*_/ We would like to > spend another week testing it before announcing a final 1.0 release. Any > feedback from the community about the RC, in the mean time, will be much > appreciated. -- Brane
