-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I second that. So long as we do not make an actual tag w/ that date, i.e. have a time series of release candidates in the tags directory.
Regards, Alan Matt Hogstrom wrote, On 12/15/2005 9:12 AM: > Good idea Paul...I like the date time string idea. > > Paul McMahan wrote: > >> On 12/15/05, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Second, someone pointed out (I think it was Jacek) that we did not >>> include >>> a >>> notation in the binary about what the release candidate was so that >>> it is >>> not >>> confused with the final release. Before releasing another cut I would >>> like the >>> naming convention of the binary and the directories to be clearer as to >>> what >>> they contain otherwise this will get confusing. My suggestion is >>> that the >>> name be: >>> >>> geronimo-jetty-1.0-rc[n].tar.gz for example. Where [n] is the number of >>> the >>> release candidate (and we are now on number 2). The next set of images >>> should >>> follow this convention to ensure we are not confusing the users. I know >>> these >>> are release candidates and this isn't required but it would make me >>> sleep >>> better >>> at night :) The directory that is actually contained in the zip will >>> still be >>> geronimo-1.0. Thoughts? >> >> >> >> >> Matt, including a notation in the filename seems like a good idea and >> could >> help prevent confusion. I've also seen projects use a date string >> instead >> of a release candidate number for this purpose. Using a date string is >> helpful since it makes it obvious when the image was created plus avoids >> publicizing how many unsuccessful attempts there have been (not saying >> that >> would be an issue in this case :o) >> >> Best wishes, >> Paul >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFDoa9O1xC6qnMLUpYRAvh0AJdhPFx2Iqw4Xq4a6EIL9dpTOzDFAJ0T6j9N ClFIsY+jLB6racfd8nZltA== =NZnc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
