Rails 3.1.2.rc2 just got released. Around the time of the 3.1.1 release,
there was also a relatively evolved release process including announcements
and release candidates.
Why?
Minor releases (e.g. 2.x) and major releases (e.g. Rails 2 and Rails 3)
usually add tons of features and, even in
Agree. I was going to say this a while ago as well. It doesn't matter if we
are going to have Rails 3.1.100, it matters for us to release early and
release often to make sure those fixes are in people's hand.
And by the way, after I talked to a lot of non-core guys, they usually
don't care about
I believe the reason for Release Candidate is not just to test rails, but
other components as well, take this RC for example, it depends on
un-released version of sass-rails, and a new version of Sprockets even if
Rails did not introduce any regressions that doesn't mean that other
components are
Again, that is irrelevant. It is a *patch* release, noting should be breaking.
If something break:
1. We're doing it wrong. That mean some change should *not* be in the patch
release.
2. I doubt people will notice it at the time of RC. again, no one uses RC on
production, let alone development
Rails never quite followed SemVer (call it what you will), though.
-foca
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Prem Sichanugrist sikand...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, that is irrelevant. It is a *patch* release, noting should be
breaking. If something break:
1. We're doing it wrong. That mean some
I know, I always find it irritating, but I think the core team are now trying
hard to. :)
- Prem
On Nov 15, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Nicolás Sanguinetti wrote:
Rails never quite followed SemVer (call it what you will), though.
-foca
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Prem Sichanugrist
I have seen previous tiny version releases break the SQL Server adapter. Which
to me points out two things, the scope and size of the rails stack and the
nasty hacks I have had to do to pass the ActiveRecord test suite.
In general I agree that tiny version releases should not need release
On Tue, November 15, 2011 09:42, Ken Collins wrote:
I have seen previous tiny version releases break the SQL
Server adapter. Which to me points out two things, the
scope and size of the rails stack and the nasty hacks I
have had to do to pass the ActiveRecord test suite.
In general I agree
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Mislav mislav.maroh...@gmail.com wrote:
Rails 3.1.2.rc2 just got released. Around the time of the 3.1.1 release,
there was also a relatively evolved release process including announcements
and release candidates.
Why?
Standardizing the process makes it
On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 4:26:34 PM UTC+1, Jeremy Kemper wrote:
Pushing a candidate is part of making that process robust and repeatable.
It's bizarre that pushing *more* releases makes the act of pushing releases
easier.
The candidates are to avoid release screwups, not to capture
On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 4:26:34 PM UTC+1, Jeremy Kemper wrote:
Pushing a candidate is part of making that process robust and repeatable.
It's bizarre that pushing *more* releases makes the act of pushing releases
easier.
The candidates are to avoid release screwups, not to
Indeed. Advocating that we go back to what we did before is a big mistake.
Releasing actual gems is the best way to make sure that people know about
the impending release and have an opportunity to try it out and discover
mistakes. In fact, the RC releases we have done *have* discovered mistakes.
I think the fact that I messed up rc1 is testament to the fact that RCs
are a good idea ;)
But in general, doing releases is a big hassle. Therefore, I would
prefer to encounter this hassle on my own schedule, not in the middle of
the night when I've just messed up a 'real' release and am racing
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:55:05PM +, Jon Leighton wrote:
I think the fact that I messed up rc1 is testament to the fact that RCs
are a good idea ;)
But in general, doing releases is a big hassle. Therefore, I would
prefer to encounter this hassle on my own schedule, not in the middle of
14 matches
Mail list logo
