Georg Brandl wrote:
> OK, maybe alphas and betas were a bit too skeptical; but there needs to be
> *something* that people can test before final. Otherwise, another release
> may be necessary just afterwards :|
As has been noted, release candidate -> maintenance release is the
approach that has w
Its also about preventing the brown paper bag releases caused by stupid
screwups.
On Aug 7, 2009 8:08 PM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
Georg Brandl wrote: > OK, maybe alphas and betas were a bit too skeptical;
but there needs to be > *...
As has been noted, release candidate -> maintenance release is t
On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:20 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Why does that require doing alphas and betas? I believe the 2.5.x
releases only had a RC and the 3.0.1 and 2.6.x had no preview
releases
before the final bugfix release.
OK, maybe alphas and betas were a bit too skeptical; but there needs
to
Le jeudi 06 août 2009 à 23:32 -0700, Raymond Hettinger a écrit :
> > I just meant to +1 the "we need to make a new micro-release right now"
> > paragraph. Logistically, I think it needs to be a full binary release
> > but it could be identical to 3.1 except for the one patch.
>
> Looking at Misc/
i assume someone already knows, just pointing it out.
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Yes.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 23:14, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> i assume someone already knows, just pointing it out.
> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>
--
