On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 09:46AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> 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.

You right - sorry guys: I guess my comment was off-based. I think I need to
learn to read all over again ;(

Thanks for the clarification, Brane!
  Cos

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to