What is the reasoning behing this release procedure? It is something that I have never understood for this project. Why wouldn't you just have 3.3 CR1 and up and when that release is deemed correct/stable to just relabel it as GA as most projects do?
After all, it is just a version number to which you attach a certain label. Ramon On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Richard Brown <[email protected]>wrote: > Fine by me. > > > On 17 April 2012 08:30, Oskar Berggren <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have reviewed all the unresolved Jira issues marked as affecting >> 3.3.0CR1. Most of them were not new regressions (I have moved those to >> 3.2). The few that seemed to be new regressions have been fixed. >> Currently, there are no open bugs in Jira that describe 3.3.0CR1 >> regressions. >> >> The few changes that have been made after the candidate release are >> mostly in code paths that shouldn't be used except for very specific >> features/dialects. The exception is a change to the LINQ providers >> join handling to fix a regression. However, it seems limited enough >> that we don't need to delay the GA by doing another CR. (Let's do a >> minor release if really necessary instead.) >> >> I think we are ready to make the GA release. I can do it later this >> week. Should I go ahead and do it? >> >> >> /Oskar >> > > -- Ramon
