On 31.03.2015 17:46, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:44 AM, 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". > It would be more apparent that the podling has their release process under > control if the release-process-candidates being iterated on were clearly > differentiated using unambiguous directory names, Git tag names, etc. > > For example, the last vote could have been on... > > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3-rc2 > GIT tag release-1.0.0-RC3-rc2 > > ... and this vote could have been on: > > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-rc0 > GIT tag release-1.0.0-rc0 > > That's still a little hard to follow, but at least it distinguishes different > release-process-candidates from each other.
Oh, that's a different matter entirely. Release process needs polishing and documenting (and scripting and automating), I agree; up to now, it's been mostly about getting the licensing stuff squared away. One step at a time. :) -- Brane --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
