+1 --Yakov
2015-03-16 0:19 GMT+03:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 09:46AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 15.03.2015 09:28, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 07:55AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > >> On 15.03.2015 07:15, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > >>> +1 > > >>> > > >>> I still recommend you not to include RC# into top-level directory > name when > > >>> you create the zip file. RC is a logical state of the archive - not > its > > >>> physical property. Also, earlier I commented on how the checksums > will be > > >>> screwed if you try to re-pack the archive. > > >> Actually, if I see "Ignite ver. 1.0.0-rc3" printed on my screen when I > > >> run a program, then I do expect the -rc3 tag to be part of the source > > >> directory name. It is valid and reasonable practice to make a public > > >> release candidate. We do that at least once for every 1.x.0 release at > > >> Subversion: > > >> > > >> > http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/releasing.html#release-numbering > > >> > > >> The process we use there is: > > >> > > >> * Release 1.x.0-rc1 as a formal ASF release > > >> * Wait for a "soak period" (typically 4 weeks) > > >> o during this time, users can take the candidate for a spin and > > >> report any problems > > >> o we fix the problems, and if any of them are serious enough > > >> (e.g., requiring a public API change), we roll -rc2 etc. and > > >> restart the soak period > > >> > http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/svn-soak-management.png > > >> * Once we've decided that the release candidate is stable, we > create a > > >> new release based on the same tag, with only one change: the -rc* > > >> tag is dropped from all version numbers (that's basically a > one-line > > >> change in svn_version.h). > > >> > > >> We've found that this works extremely well to make .0 releases more > stable. > > > I actually do agree that the described procedure is a great way to > > > stabilize a release. However, i was under the impression that the goal > of > > > this exercise is to produce 1.0 release that'd be ready for IPMC vote > > > from release expectation stand-point, not technical merits of the > project. > > > If i am mistaken on that - then i want to withdraw my comment. > > > > I'll quote Dmitriy (with my emphasis): > > > > On 13.03.2015 08:25, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > > I am resubmitting 1.0 RC3 for a vote having addressed comments from > Cos and > > > Brane. /_*Note that this is a real RC, and not a 1.0 yet.*_/ We would > like to > > > spend another week testing it before announcing a final 1.0 release. > Any > > > feedback from the community about the RC, in the mean time, will be > much > > > appreciated. > > You right - sorry guys: I guess my comment was off-based. I think I need to > learn to read all over again ;( > > Thanks for the clarification, Brane! > Cos > >
