On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
Could you let me know in what consists your process of reviewing a release
candidate? Until now, I've performed a full build, ran the samples, checked
for license headers. Haven't found any guidelines on the website or
Thank you for the information Ant. I was wondering more about the checks
each developer is doing before voting a +1. I'd like to choose a set of
checks to perform myself when a vote is called but I can't think of tests
other than the ones that I stated earlier...
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:20 AM,
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I've decided to open a separate thread for this discussion as this topic is
big enough. I've tried all the samples from 2.0-beta2 rc2 and here are my
findings:
- sample-scdl-include-contribution (fails to load
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Great stuff Florian, thanks for doing that work.
Some of those I know are relatively easy to fix and its just a matter
of getting around to it.
That's right, some of them are trivial, but some are pretty nasty... I'd
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Great stuff Florian, thanks for doing that work.
Some of those I know are relatively easy to fix and its just a matter
of getting around to it.
ant elder wrote:
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Florian MOGA moga@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Great stuff Florian, thanks for doing that work.
Some of those I know are relatively easy to fix and its just a matter
of getting
I agree with Simon. Cutting releases just to make fixes available for
affected users is definitely something we should do more often. Marking
releases with major and minor sounds like a good way to signal what type of
release it is. It also helps the release review process as we know what to
focus
Well ok, the current release was going to be called 2.0-beta2,with
where we are now and not having done a 2.0 yet if i want to do a
release now from the current trunk then what should it be called to it
get out with the samples being in the less than perfect state that
they are? And can the
Current naming with beta isn't that flexible. We could continue doing a lot
of betaX releases or start naming betaX.X. I'm fine with both of them. After
we get 2.0 out we can start having 2.0.1, 2.0.2 ... 2.1, 2.1.1, , 2.2
and things will get more obvious.
Regarding samples, we can either
