Glad we are having the discussion now, because I also got a bit confused by the RC "acting" like a full Apache release :)
Ethan, I agree with your definition of RC vs full release. At this point I cannot see why we should go through a full release process to see if we are ready to make a release. It feels like a slight overkill, at least for the time being when only 3-4 people (afaik) on the dev list use the RC for testing purposes. - anne On 2. mars 2010, at 00.14, Ethan Jewett wrote: > How is publishing a tarball on a public site that is clearly labelled > as a trial release and *not* for general consumption significantly > different than making available a public SVN repository? > > Ethan > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Gianugo Rabellino > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> If we are cutting a tag into a trial release in order to help >>> ourselves figure out if we are ready to make a release, then I think >>> we should call it a "release candidate" and we should not go through >>> the full Apache release process and we should not "release" it. We >>> should just put the RC tarball out on the public site for people to >>> evaluate, >> >> Which at great length fits the ASF definition of a release... :) >> >> "Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the >> group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside >> the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is >> being instructed to download a package, then that package has been >> released." (http://apache.org/dev/release.html) >> >> -- >> Gianugo Rabellino >> M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846 >> Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com >>
