On 9/22/15, 09:15, "iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org on behalf of Thiago Macieira" <iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org on behalf of thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday 22 September 2015 02:53:30 ??? wrote: >> I dont want rc2 because rc1 qa actually didnt start. And 3 round of >>turns >> were announced for 1.0.0. Rc2 can mislead 2nd round qa. If you dont >>have >> strong objection about rc1a, i will go forward with RC1a. > >Announcing how many rounds of QA there will be was the mistake. There >will be >as many rounds as are required to get to the quality required for the >release. >If we can do it in two, then we don't need to run a third round just >because >someone estimated three would be required. If in the third round we find >it's >not working, then we need to run a fourth. And so on. > >And I also disagree that QA didn't start. It did and it found that the >correct >discovery query packets weren't being sent. > >And finally, I don't see what the point of "RC1a" is. That's just going >to be >confusing in the future. Just call it RC2. +1
