On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:07:08AM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote: > >>> On 7/10/2008 at 12:37 PM, in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear all: > > > > Here's the release plan for the upcoming 3.1 release. > > > > I believe all the important, show-stopping backport proposals in the > > STATUS file for 3.1 branch have already been processed and voted on. > > So all the remaining backport proposals will be moved from "BACKPORT > > PROPOSALS" to "BACKPORT PROPOSALS NEXT VERSION" except for > > documentation patches. > > > > As for... > > > > * gmond: avoid latency and timeouts when using the tcpconn python module > > > > If this causes issues, we could just turn it off by default and put in > > documentation about its potential pitfalls on certain platforms. > > > > Let's get this done by Friday and roll out a beta. We'll test this > > for a week, and roll out RC1, RC2, etc. etc. > > I would just like to make a comment about version numbers as we are about > to generate our first release of 3.1. I noted this on the wiki several > months ago under the section "Generating a Release Candidate and GA Release" > (http://ganglia.wiki.sourceforge.net/ganglia_works) which describes the same > release versioning process that the Apache project uses. This also goes > back to our discussions about 3.1.0 vs. 3.1.1 version number.
right, the first beta that Bernard is going to generate sometime today will be either called 3.1.0 or 3.1.1 (depending on what he decides to do, and which will be most likely 3.1.0 since there shouldn't be any technical reason not to anyway and he expressed several times that is what he wanted to do) since we had been testing snapshots for more than a year, I am pretty sure is going to be rock solid (except of course for the platforms that will have no support and that we are most likely going to have to defer to the next release but will be interesting to test as well, even if that means will need to have unofficial patches applied to them to work for 3.1.0) > The Apache project does not use the labels Alpha, Beta, RCx for any of > the actual tarball file names or internal version numbers in the source > code itself. The only time these labels are used are in the mailing list > announcements during the testing period. The reason why these labels > are not used in the file name or in the source code is so that a tarball > only has to be rolled once and if determined during the testing period to > be releasable, no alterations to the actual tarball are made. It is simply > released officially. This could be a little confusing, but we agreed to it so be it, hopefully again, since we had been testing this for a long time, the beta won't need to be thrown away but used AS-IS all the way through the RCs and we would make a 3.1.0 official release instead of having to resort into a 3.1.25 like Apache 2.0 did. any one willing to take some bets? > If we did, then our first official release would be 3.2.0 rather than > 3.1.<whatever>. My preference would be to stick to the 3.1.x scheme > as described in the wiki and the paragraph above. Agree, we could reconsider it when 3.2.0 gets released. Carlo ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ Ganglia-developers mailing list Ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ganglia-developers
