On 03/28/13 10:17, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
On 03/26/13 20:37, sebb wrote:
On 26 March 2013 12:18, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
I'm less sure about the best approach to numbering this new
candidate. (In
the past, I've cut release candidates first. Even with a staging
repository
this would have been sensible.) I lean towards 0.9.1, eliminating any
risk
that two signed 0.9 could escape into the wild.
Opinions? Objections? Suggestions?
Not sure you need to worry about the files escaping from the staging
repo - that's part of the point, they are not yet published files.
So long as you delete the repo they won't be published.
Yes, now that the repo has been dropped, escape is unlikely
I'm comfortable with either trying a 0.9 again or cutting a 0.9.1
Is there consensus that trying again to cut a 0.9 release would be the
best approach?
A good fix turned out to be fiddle, so I committed a workaround[1] for
the issue. I'm ready to try staging another candidate.
Robert
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1462047
