Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Florian Klaempfl > <flor...@freepascal.org> wrote: >> And what if someone realizes that one patch is missing? > > Well, is that not what "release canditate" or stable branches are for? > Users at least expect updates and backports of patches in a branch. > Then test, test and test! Once everything is working, create a release > tag based on that branch.
If you think it's so easy, be our guest to coordinate an fpc release :) 2.2.4 was heavily tested but then we recognized a security hole after everything was packed. Just as a hint: till all different versions of fpc for one rc are packed, it takes easily 2-4 weeks and lot of poking by the release coordinator :) > >> Skip a release >> number? We will never to this again, we did this in FPC 1.0.x times and >> it caused a lot of confusion. Better a tag is moved ... > > Isn't that what point releases are for?? > > * Release 0.9.26. > * Oh crap, we didn't test enough and 0.9.26 is broken. > * merge, fix and retest using the branch release 0.9.26 was based on. > * Release 0.9.26.1 This is not really possible, the defines etc. in fpc are limited currently to x.y.z > > ....in the mean time new development continues on unstable trunk (0.9.27)... > > If a release is broken one day after it has been released, then > clearly not enough testing was done on that stable branch. In that > case, release candidate branches should have a longer lifespan. So above. _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus