> Again I start a release process and produce a "candidate for release" > build with a naming 3.0.4 for 5 days vote. > Something failed, so it has been fixed and I restarted a vote with a > second "candidate for release" called 3.0.4 for 5 days vote. > (retagging etc.... ) > > What is the difference with producing something called RC1 (build > which will never published) and rebuild after some days the SAME thing > without the RC end naming ? > > Sorry but except some marketing naming I don't see any difference in a > technical point of view (everything can be tracked in the scm).
There's a big difference as we found in the past. Quoting from myself (http://www.sonatype.com/people/2008/04/quality-is-not-accidental/) "The normal release process for Maven is to stage a release, email the dev list and wait for votes or show stopper issues to occur. The norm for most releases is 72 hours, but with Maven core releases it was common to let it bake for a week or more. Based on history, I was positive that the first few attempts wouldn’t make it through, so we started with a “pre vote” instead of a vote email. It seemed that each “pre vote” staged release we posted for dev list testing showed yet another how come no one noticed that? regression. It became apparent that we needed more than ever to harness the power of the full community to squash these regressions. Since tossing out multiple versions all called “2.0.9″ to such a wide audience was clearly a bad idea, we started appending -RC[x] to distinguish them. Additionally, we needed to have a set of operating parameters to guide this broad level of testing, lest we have chaos in the flood of bug fix requests." The point is we need to put something out that is a "release" that the wider user community will consume and provide feedback on. This has in the past been very effective at surfacing important issues that won't be found from people on the dev list, but will be found before the ink is even dry on the official release. You can see more of the reasoning here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-users/200804.mbox/%3c2babbe7d2a66e04db8a66a527d29927e35e...@intrepid.infinity.nu%3E This has pretty much been standard fare since 2.0.9, and I don't see a good reason to deviate. On the contrary, wagon changes are particularly hard to fully test out and having more eyes are better. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
