On 6/18/2013 11:11 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
To be clear, if the polish involves changing the code, then you are
asking for an rc2.
The changes should be reflected in RC1 to avoid ppl having to trash
their Bayes data due to a data format change. This would not be very
kind and could scsare potential early adopters away and give the
feeling of this being very inmature, which it isn't.
Yes, I agree with Alex - if the change in a format of a Redis bayes database
is to stay (as comitted today), it would be unkind to testers to bother
them with the previous format and a need for transition.
I'm sorry the work on Lua happened to coincide with Kevin's work on RC1.
No worries! I've been documenting much more of the process which is the
real time drain. I can cut a new rc in a hour or sooner now I believe
other than waiting for a make disttest to complete.
I'm not going to bore you with details but in short, that just not how
ASF release procedures works. The rc1 is already created. Now we vote
on it. If you don't think it should be 3.4.0 because it needs new code
for example, vote -1 and we have to create an rc2 and repeat when it's
ready.
imo, we will need a RC2 (Mark?) so if that's the method -1
Yes, please Kevin, re-carve the RC2 from the current repository.
In that sense here is my formal -1 on RC1 (unless we decide to
ditch the change in a db format and stay with what went into RC1).
Should I wait 1 week as recommend by AXB before creating Rc2 to make
sure we don't need an RC3 right away?
regards,
KAM
