Rick Hillegas wrote:
Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
I also want to point out that it seems we're still getting a number of
bugs from the testing - and we haven't started on the official testing
cycle yet.
So, I think at this point it's likely there's going to be a second
release candidate.
As is our practice, I assume each committer will be taking care of
committing to trunk and backporting to the 10.3-branch-to-be-created.
I'll adjust the 10.3 wiki soon.
Silly question: should our first candidate release off the branch be
version 10.3.0.0 or 10.3.0.1?
Myrna
Hi Myrna,
I think that 10.3.0.0 would be a fine name for the first release
candidate. If we followed the pattern of the last two branches, however,
the first release candidate would be called 10.3.1.0. I don't see a
compelling reason to follow that pattern.
If there's a possibility that the first candidate could become a release
then it should be 10.3.1.0. Otherwise the official release would be
alpha (forced by the third 0 x.x.0.x) and would not upgrade from
previous releases. And if it's a "release candidate" then that seems to
indicate it could become an official release!!
Dan.
