On 2/9/07, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nathan Bubna wrote: > > For our purpose, yes. So far as i know, the only real requirements > for a release are that we have our license ducks in a row and get > three +1s for releasing from the PMC. I don't think there are any > requirements on what label (test/alpha/beta/GA/M1/whatever) we give > the build, however, for the purposes of establishing our release > process, i do not think we should be releasing what we consider to be > no better than test builds. Really? Than what would you suggest an alpha is? To me, alpha is precisely that - a test build that has been pushed out to the public in order to get additional feedback that will help in refining things into a beta.
They all start as a test build.... A test build is a build that hopes to be released, but typically is not. This is what we vote on whether to release with either Alpha, Beta, or GA label or to keep as a mere test build and not release to the public. This should not be mirrored and not announced beyond the dev@ list, as it has not yet received PMC approval for release. An Alpha is a test build that we deem worthy of releasing with alpha label. For me, this merely means that it meets the standards for an ASF release, in terms of PMC approval, license stuff all properly in place, and includes both binary build and sources in the distribution. This can be announced to the user list and listed on the website, but the alpha label should be clear and a brief explanation/disclaimer isn't a bad idea. A Beta is a test build we deem worthy of releasing with the beta label. For me, this means that it meets the standards for an ASF release (same as above), but also is more stable and complete code-wise than an Alpha. Changes can be expected, but API changes should be minimal, usually just minor additions and bugfixes. This should definitely be announced to the user list and put on the website. Depending on the release manager's confidence in the quality and stability of this, they may even want to announce it more broadly. When we deem a test build worthy of releasing with the GA, this means we think the build is ready for use in production. We can announce it as far and wide as we like and voting +1 GA typically implies some degree of willingness to support the release on the user@ list.
If I'm off base, perhaps we're not ready for an initial release?
Now that Niall's patches for the build process are in, i think we probably are.
David > >> Thanks, >> Greg >> >
