On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:16 PM, David Zuelke <d...@heroku.com> wrote: > As a, more or less, "outside observer", I happen to think that the current > method of voting on finals, instead of a practice of rolling out RCs (that > are then left up for testing for at least a week), is fundamentally broken. > The 2.4 changelog in particular is littered with releases that were never > officially published. For users, that's really confusing. For maintainers, > it's painful to start over the process each time, and it sometimes leads to > months and months without a release that contains certain fixes. Then a > backport goes wrong (still using SVN, in my opinion, does not help there, but > that's a whole different discussion :)), and a regression is in the latest > release until someone eventually picks up a fix.
It seems to me that most "not released" versions are immediately superseded. The practice of throwing away the number instead of calling the initial contents an RC shouldn't contribute meaningfully to a fix being delayed. New blood for release managers would be nice, and smaller/more frequent /more predictable releases would probably help that. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
