On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Martin Landa <landa.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > 2015-10-20 9:36 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert <mlenn...@club.worldonline.be>: > > > The idea of the RC2 was to provoke some more last-minute testing as some > > fixes might have been introduced after RC1 and I'm not sure how many > people > > test the release branch between RC's. This way we make it more prominent > and > > can send out a call to everyone to please test RC2. This does not mean > that > > RC2 cannot be identical to final. It's just a last chance to spot any > > serious issues. > > > > So, I would plead for leaving it in. 5 days more or less is not that > much, > > or ? > > I understand the point, on the other hand it's extra work for release > manager and packager which would sometimes make sense to avoid and be > so not strict in the way that RC2 step could be optional (or skipped > if no objection from community). On the other hand we can add more > steps (RC3, RC4, ...) if it will be necessary in the case of extra > complicated release. > > Any comments, ideas? Thanks, Martin > I agree with Martin, I guess it's quite a bit of work involved in it and it seems we now started to release more often than in previous years, which is a good trend. So I would rather release more often with less RCs. Anna > > -- > Martin Landa > http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa > http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa > _______________________________________________ > grass-dev mailing list > grass-...@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev >
_______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc