Am 02/26/17 um 13:03 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > Even if we had a -1 as long as I have the binding votes *as release > manager* it would be my call whether to release or not. > > Now *personally* I much rather release with consensus, but any committer > can step up to be release manager for any of our components, so I would > prefer if we can agree our current position (which we can agree to change > in the future if needed) and just run with that. > > For me: > > * alpha is also about saying "we are not closed to adding something else > before beta... but we will think hard on any proposed additions" > > * beta is about saying "only important bug fixes... or really low risk bug > fixes after careful evaluation" > > * RC is "last chance to find showstoppers only"... if no showstopper then > we drop and cut the release for real >
We should document that somewhere. I am used to some different meaning. alpha: Development not finished yet. More commits to come. Everything can happen. It's just a label external entities can refer to in a stable way (like in JIRA - instead of having to refer to e.g. the snapshot from yesterday 3 hours after commit xyz). The classifier could as well be an SCM id (like -alpha-svnrevision or -alpha-uglygithash). beta: Development is finished. Seeking for testing. Developers will only fix bugs, if there are any. Just the final steps needed to get things ready for release. RC: Same meaning Stephen described. The RC already is the final release. When the SCM allows it, you normally rename the RC tag removing the RC and just rebuild that for the final release. This is what you will be paying for. Point of no return. Nothing can be removed afterwards - just deprecations or additions to come in the next development cycle. Seeking for a major review/final testing. Regards, -- Christian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
