We tend to avoid dong adding the RC bits to the version since they voted on bits are held in a staging area.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: > +1. I think we'd still have to do a 5.9.1, but it's a good idea. While I > sort through the issues for 5.9.1 I could cut a 5.10.0-RC1. Or should we go > straight to a 5.10.0 and redo it if necessary? > > Hadrian > > > > On 02/03/2014 10:41 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote: >> >> I think it's safest to to just call trunk 5.10 now since it is taking >> away some functionality. Would be nice to get some RCs going soon >> since trunk is stable right now. >> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am still planning to release 5.9.1. We need to figure out if we want to >>> cut 5.9.1 off of the current trunk at a stable checkpoint, or branch it >>> off >>> 5.9.0 and just select the relevant patches. While the feedback on this >>> list >>> is not conclusive (and I personally favor the 1st approach) I believe >>> most >>> would favor the 2nd approach. Last week there were over 200 patches that >>> we'd have to look through and backport. The fastest we could get through >>> this the sooner we'll have the release, I hope before mid Feb. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Hadrian >>> >>> >>> >>> On 01/30/2014 03:31 PM, kal123 wrote: >>>> >>>> There were post for cutting 5.9.1 any update on timeline for this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074.html >>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> >> >> > -- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
