The idea is encouraging and fostering a broader test audience.
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> Unless I misunderstand...
>
> 2.4.30-RC1 (rejected)
> 2.4.30-RC2 (our .31, rejected)
> 2.4.30-RC3 (our .32, rejected)
> 2.4.30-RC4 -> 2.4.30 GA (our 2.4.33 release)
>
> With all the associated changes in between, no actual change in branch
> management, scope, feature creep, etc?
>
> This sounds like dressing up the status quo with different labels.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 10:37 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com
> <mailto:j...@jagunet.com>> wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net
> > <mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com
> > <mailto:j...@jagunet.com>> wrote:
> >> With all this in mind, should we try to set things up so that the
> >> next release cycle uses the concept of RCs?
> >>
> >> If so, and if people like, I can come up with a baseline
> >> proposal on the process for us to debate and come to
> >> some consensus on.
> >
> > Would you define an RC? What changes are allowable in that branch?
>
>
> The idea is that right now we take an existing state in SVN
> and tag it as, for example, 2.4.121. We then vote on that tag
> and the artifacts released from that tag. No work is done on
> the 2.4 branch while testing is done so that we ensure that
> the SVN rev on branch == the one for the tag
>
> Not necessary to freeze; a tag can always be applied to an older rev.
>
> Instead, we tag at 2.4.121-RC1. We do the exact same. If the
> vote does not pass, we continue on the 2.4 branch, fix the
> issues, and then tag a 2.4.121-RC2. Rinse and repeat.
>
> If the vote does pass we tag the branch, which is still == RC#
> at this stage, as 2.4.121 (ap_release.h mods included). We
> still even at this stage test and vote on the release as we have
> for decades. If it passes, we release. If not, for some reason,
> we have burned the 2.4.121 release, bump to 2.4.122 and GOTO
> the above.
>
> This is the overall idea... more flesh to be added.
