On 16 June 2011 12:17, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 16 Jun 2011, at 01:04, Paul Davis wrote: >> >>> During the 1.0.2 release it became apparent that when a vote fails and >>> we have to redo the whole thing that it can become confusing what's >>> being voted on as there exists multiple tarballs that have the same >>> filename. >> >> I didn't see any mention of this? >> >> And anyway, it is only on the local machine. >> >> The original release artefacts should be replaced in their entirety. >> >> There is no way we can modify the release artefacts in any way between them >> being voted on and them being released, so the idea of baking in a rcX is >> completely out of the question. The only possibility I can think of is to >> prefix the files in an rcX directory in the release managers personal >> directory. However, it is my opinion that this is not so much of a problem >> as to warrant such a move. We've managed the last few years without this. >> Perhaps better instructions in the vote emails could help matters? > > Yeah, the absolutely no modifications bit seemed like it'd almost make > this sort of a no go. > > There was minor chatter last time in confusion about which artefacts > were what because everything had the same filenames as I replaced > things in my people.a.o/~davisp/dist/1.0.3 directory. > > I think I might just steal your idea and in my dist directory do > something like ~davisp/dist/1.0.3-rc1/ and the files are all as > before. > > Sound like a good compromise, my dark lord? >
+1.
