-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes: > > > OK, I do not agree with this. in my opinion, a release number is only > > "burned in stone" once the file is announced, uploaded to CPAN, etc. > > I'd prefer to avoid "burning" too early, as it makes for less flexibility. > > I'm open to moving it to the "public tarball" stage if we add the > procedure for how to back out the tags, Changes file (if needed?), etc. Yeah, I'd agree. Backing out the tags is unnecessary -- afaik it'll just update them; and Changes, that's just a matter of recommiting a new change that says "oops, made a boo-boo, THIS IS THE REAL 3.0.X RELEASE". Pretty much like I did for 3.0.0-pre1 ;) Michael -- btw -- my take is that someone could be running svn trunk or a nightly snapshot, so attaching "there can be only one" status to a tarball that never got onto /dist, is silly under the circumstances. > > Let's not make rules for the sake of making rules! > > No, my intent is not to do that. I just want to avoid consternation at > release time when the RM is already under enough pressure. Make the > decision beforehand, one we can stick with and won't want to change or > argue later. OK, that's cool. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFCdsj+MJF5cimLx9ARAtcwAKCfjGgOuvuSXgRnwSy2/Dymt72hCgCdG8fe 2/p88i8lhk+F4aYmXkKsEUE= =3+io -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
