Thanks Adrien and every one else. The vote has passed. I am traveling back to San Francisco (14 hours away) so I will resume the release process as soon as I'm back.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 SUCCESS! [1:11:11.509082] > > I also tried to run TestBackwardsCompatibility from the 5.4 branch on an > index generated by this release candidate, this did not catch problems. > > Le mer. 13 janv. 2016 à 09:09, Adrien Grand <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> Le mer. 13 janv. 2016 à 07:19, Ryan Ernst <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >>> While this isn't something we have tests for in >>> TestBackwardsCompatibility (that only tests every previous version against >>> the current version), we do have tests in TestVersion for parsing versions >>> that do not have constants (see testForwardsCompatibility). Version >>> constants are only shortcuts to Version objects with known values, not what >>> are passed around. >>> >> >> Thanks Ryan. So the version part should be fine at least. >> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>> Seems like this versioning limitation should be fixed - we should >>>>> always be free to create bugfix releases for past releases. >>>>> >>>> >> While I agree it should not prevent us from releasing as it is something >> that we would need to do anyway for instance if we discover a serious >> corruption bug, it still puts us in an lesser known territory that means >> that we need to be more careful when testing the release. >> >> Most of the work has already been done so I don't think we should cancel >> this release, we just need to test more carefully, but this is something >> that would refrain me from proposing to do bugfix releases of previous >> minor releases again in the future, unless there is a major bug that needs >> to be adressed. >> > -- Anshum Gupta
