-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
BTW, I don't think there's a need to redo a new tarball. Once the tarball's out there (FSVO "out"), a point of no return has been reached, and I don't think the bug is *that* urgent. - --j. Michael Parker writes: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 05:43:37PM -0700, Justin Mason wrote: > > > > And strongly +1 on "votes on the list *only*". The IRC channel is > > nice, but we're not all there ;) > > > > I think it's a shame that IRC has become less useful for developers. > It used to be a very good tool for everyone. Evidently Daniel hasn't > been able to send his vote to the list, here is a small transcript > from IRC: > [17:21:51] <Herk> quinlan: so +1? > [17:32:32] <quinlan> yeah, +1 > [17:32:54] <Herk> quinlan: can you mail dev, just to make it official > > Once 3 or more +1 votes have been received for a release any decision > for ultimate release lies with the release manager. There is no > mandated soak time, if the release is ready it should go. > > I agree, that in most cases, we should allow 24 hrs or so for someone > to register a veto on a patch before applying it to the stable > branch. That obviously doesn't always happen. I make sure to do that > for any patches of mine that might be controversial or if I'm unsure > for any reason. > > We are talking about a bug that came in after the 3.0.3 release had > been built and made public (not in an official directory, but public > non the less). So moving forward and putting anything into the stable > branch will entail a bump in the release version for a release. > > 3.0.3 has not been officially released, but there is a tarball in the > wild that claims it is 3.0.3. The only steps I've taken thus far are > to move things over to dist so the Apache mirror system can begin > syncing the release out to the various mirrors. > > I'm willing to scrap 3.0.3 all together and move on to 3.0.4, afterall > the whole point of this exercise is to get something out there and > stable. However, please keep in mind when it comes to release, we not > only need to get things built and tested, but we should allow time for > tarballs to sync out to mirror sites before announcing. For > maintenance releases this is pretty easy because we're dealing with a > fairly stable set of code. > > We're in no different place than if the release had received no +1 > votes so we might as well move forward, bump the release num, declare > 3.0.3 dead and get a nice stable 3.0.4 out the door. > > Michael > > --=_mail-17219-1114649992-0001-2 > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Disposition: inline > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFCcDWHG4km+uS4gOIRAnRiAJ0TwtDOb9t7kVJKN0u74tQggBd9awCfQF2H > TcC/MOqx+mANnHketsE6kDA=VC0X > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --=_mail-17219-1114649992-0001-2-- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFCcDiXMJF5cimLx9ARAmMiAJ9N4F+8zcbngMskG2EXgq/LwCe9EACeLOIg 1LT0W3HI0haajAMjDGOVGCs= =WUGu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
