Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rick Hillegas wrote: >> Hi Dyre, >> >> I believe that the best distribution would be a release candidate >> with the beta bit turned on. > > Then it would be a candidate for a beta release. That's certainly an > option, but if the intention is to produce only a non-beta release > then calling a beta build a release candidate is confusing.
>From my persepective there is no confusion here. The first release candidate is scheduled for 2008-04-04 and there will be no release candidate before that. I'm talking about a beta BUILD that people can try out while we're working our way towards the release candidate. I wanted to know what the community expects to be part of such a build. E.g.: - Do the archives need to be signed? - Should I upload all the files from tools/release, or just a subset? - Should I generate (unfinished) release notes (or simply use those from the last release)? - Do I need to update the CHANGES file? - Do I need to update the SQLState documentation? Thanks, -- dt
