On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 16:13, Warren Togami <wtog...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 01/15/2010 10:29 AM, Justin Mason wrote: >> >> Downloads are available from: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/ >> >> >> md5sum of archive files: >> >> 015d42846c819ce3aa286650bb54b53e Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.tar.bz2 >> be83248ba40ed12a20bc1f8aab8cfa7f Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.tar.gz >> a35927c52d9554f0305af584097314c2 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.zip >> ecb7f176ecc58bc34605f704c3ea2232 >> Mail-SpamAssassin-rules-3.3.0-rc3.r899655.tgz >> >> >> sha1sum of archive files: >> >> 2326787147a6dc768db4e891628e6e76d7b3b4d4 >> Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.tar.bz2 >> c96a742e23ac4d5490df41494d9265ca9a8b76de >> Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.tar.gz >> a10bdad497b9a4d336fc617aa495299f75dc3716 >> Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.zip >> ecdc6bf631586b099f3222117bc2e79789dd9fa8 >> Mail-SpamAssassin-rules-3.3.0-rc3.r899655.tgz >> >> >> proposed release announcement is there too: >> http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/PROPOSED-3.3.0-rc3.txt >> >> please vote. cheers ;) >> > > -1 > > Even though my rc3 was unofficial, it is entirely uncool from packager > perspective to reuse names. Names are meaningless and cheap. This should > have been named rc4.
We've had miscommunication. I was the under the impression you were going to call your tarballs "rc3-unofficial" to differentiate them from the "real" rc3; this didn't match what you were thinking, clearly. We should have had a better agreement in advance. > Furthermore I am unconvinced that we should change the "use bytes" thing at > this last minute. It has been going on since early 3.2.x and we're fixing > it only at the last moment before 3.3.0? This seems unsafe. Previous release policy has been that bugs are triaged and prioritized based on their importance, and fix targeting based on bug priority -- not based on proximity to release dates. -- --j.
