On 20 June 2017 at 21:06, Ulises <[email protected]> wrote: > IIUC, release versions are just a convention, just like release names and > such. In that sense, they are cheap. > > I see two competing approaches: > >> In Commons we create the tag using the RC number and name the files > with the final names but stored in a dist/dev/xxRNn folder. >> >> The votes contain the hashes and SVN URLs and versions. So when the files > are renamed from dist/dev/ to dist/release it's possible to trace them back > to the vote. >> >> If the vote succeeds the RC tag is copied to the GA tag. > > vs. > >> Where I come from (httpd), we throw away release versions if the vote doesn't > pass and just mark it as 'not released'.
You are comparing apples and pears. There's basically nothing do if an RC vote fails. Whereas httpd people have to update release notes etc for the next iteration. > Being new to releasing software the ASF way, my tiny hazy brain finds the > latter easier to digest. There are bits of the httpd process that have not been described. > Potentially silly question: how difficult is it to change release > approaches once one has been adopted? About as easy as agreeing to one initially? > U
