Agree that release.html needs some polishing, and that there are no hard rules on the versions (even "don't re-release the same version" is not written down in letters).
Obviously it would still be confusing to vote over say RC2 of 1.0.0-RC3 and best avoided if possible. This vote is luckily over the proper 1.0.0 release - but I also spotted a 1.0.1-RC1 in the Maven repositories. On 31 March 2015 at 15:44, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >> 8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to >> have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release >> Candidate is this particular thing you are asking us to vote over. >> (this might have been pointed out earlier). A pre-release can be >> called anything else, like alpha, golden master, etc. >> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what > > We've been through this and I disagree. Do not confuse release process > with release naming. That page conflates the two, which makes it just a > bit broken IMO. There are no rules for release naming "in Apache". > > -- Brane > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
