"Harry ." <[email protected]> writes: > "Glasgow Haskell Compiler 8.0.1, release candidate 1" was recently > announced, with a caveat that "This release candidate in particular is > known to suffer from a few significant issues which are being actively > worked upon ... In the coming weeks we will continue to iterate on > these issues. We will also look at Trac tickets marked with "highest" > priority on the release status page." > > This leads me to wonder whether release management know what the words > "release" and "candidate" mean! > > I would like to propose that the builds which are currently branded > "release candidate" be rebranded as "beta", seeing as that is what > they actually are. When the release manager has a build which s/he > feels is ready for release, it should be published as a release > candidate. If after a couple of weeks or so the same build is still > considered suitable for release, it can be released as is, otherwise a > new release candidate and testing period are required. > Indeed we do use these words very loosely for reasons that are largely historical.
I would be open to changing the way we refer to these early "releases" if the current misuse is causing confusion (although not for 8.0, lest we spur even more confusion). I envision we'd probably have one or more "beta" release (beta1, beta2, ...) , followed by hopefully only one "release candidate" (rc1), followed by the release. Would this address your concern? Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
