On Sep 5, 2012 11:48 AM, "Galen Charlton" <g...@esilibrary.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > On 09/05/2012 11:41 AM, Bill Erickson wrote: >> >> Surely there's a psychological difference between 2.2.3 and 2.3.0, >> but I don't see one in practice. If anything, 2.2.3 has *more* cause >> to be handled with kid gloves, since 2.2 is much more widely used in >> production systems. > > > .0 releases often feel bigger, but I agree with your overall point that we should avoid brown-bagging *any* release, be it a functionality release or a minor bugfix release. > > I actually support triple-signoffs as a matter of course -- author, tester, QAer, for example -- but I don't think we've got enough numbers yet to do that without unduly slowing down the flow of code.
For the record, I don't see what an RC branch buys us; we should be as careful in rel_2_3 as we would be in the theoretical RC branch. I'd be in favour of triple sign off for anything in a branch past RC. Including after a .0 has come out. Maybe in the short term an automated test (whether unit or system) could serve as a replacement for one of those sign-offs, if we feel that there aren't enough skilled individuals in the community... but it's definitely been encouraging recently to have sign-offs from Kathy, Ben, Jason, Michael, and others adding immensely to the QA effort!