On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <[email protected]> wrote: > Ginaugo, > > Just to make sure I understand this correctly. > When we create RCs from the tagged point release (like in this case RC1 from > the 1.0 tagged release), we need to go through the voting process each time?
The RC1 is the tagged release. We don't have a 1.0 tagged release. > > - anne > > > On 1. mars 2010, at 09.32, Gianugo Rabellino wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I would not put the letters "RC" into an actual Apache release. In my >>> mind, there is only one release. Release Candidates (RCs) are test >>> releases that are floated to the group to enable thorough testing and >>> review, but they are *not* Apache releases. (I welcome being corrected >>> by mentors and people who know better than me here. :-) >> >> Don't get carried away by the apparent clash in a "release" being >> actually a "candidate": one thing is what constitutes an Apache >> release (that is the community taking responsibility and producing a >> public artifact - sort of going on the record, if you like), quite >> another is the intended scope and audience. Alphas, betas, RCs and >> whatnot are still releases as they need to follow the Apache release >> process: as a mentor, I'm expecting this community to understand how >> the release process always has to dot every i and cross every t when >> it comes the legal and process bits, while the technical part is left >> to you guys - my suggestion to use a RC naming scheme basically means >> that the technical/QA bar might be lower than when it comes to telling >> your user base you reached the status of golden master. >> >> Ciao, >> >> -- >> Gianugo Rabellino >> M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846 >> Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com > >
