On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 22:11, Warren Togami <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/03/2009 04:45 PM, Justin Mason wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 20:58, Warren Togami <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> (I also think we should stop re-cutting pre-releases using the same >> name but different tarball contents like the past, if we have to >> re-cut the beta. The next tarball will be beta2 if we find horrible >> problems with beta1.) >> >> >> BTW I'm not too sure this is a good idea; it will be confusing to users >> if there are "missing releases". Until the vote passes, the release >> isn't officially released. >> >> --j. >> > > I respectfully disagree with the previous practice. From a distributor's > point of view it can be a lot more confusing. We like to stage our builds > ASAP so we can begin our own testing of the packages. If we begin testing > with a beta1, it can really confuse things if something else called beta1 > happens. > > So perhaps we have options like: > > * Proposed tarballs have an extra number like "proposed1" tacked to the > end, until they are approved by vote. Then it becomes "beta1" without the > suffix when released with a simple rename. > +1 -- I can go for that. --j. > * Skipping pre-release numbers really isn't a big deal. Numbers are free > and it really doesn't confuse end-users too much. Most end-users don't even > try the pre-releases anyway. Release early, release often would serve us > better in the case of pre-releases. > > > Warren Togami > [email protected] > > -- --j.
