On 12/03/2009 04:45 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 20:58, Warren Togami <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
(I also think we should stop re-cutting pre-releases using the same
name but different tarball contents like the past, if we have to
re-cut the beta. The next tarball will be beta2 if we find horrible
problems with beta1.)
BTW I'm not too sure this is a good idea; it will be confusing to users
if there are "missing releases". Until the vote passes, the release
isn't officially released.
--j.
I respectfully disagree with the previous practice. From a
distributor's point of view it can be a lot more confusing. We like to
stage our builds ASAP so we can begin our own testing of the packages.
If we begin testing with a beta1, it can really confuse things if
something else called beta1 happens.
So perhaps we have options like:
* Proposed tarballs have an extra number like "proposed1" tacked to the
end, until they are approved by vote. Then it becomes "beta1" without
the suffix when released with a simple rename.
* Skipping pre-release numbers really isn't a big deal. Numbers are
free and it really doesn't confuse end-users too much. Most end-users
don't even try the pre-releases anyway. Release early, release often
would serve us better in the case of pre-releases.
Warren Togami
[email protected]
