> > > > jallib 0.5 was available few weeks ago in group's file section for > review. > > > > This is a confusing statement. How can it be possible?
I should've said jallib 0.5 beta or release candidate was available few weeks ago. See: http://groups.google.com/group/jallib/msg/74e07b55636780d8 > 1) The > compiler in the 'release' did not exist until Dec 26, Well, maybe jallib 0.5 was planned to be released with 2.4l at that time (that was the case) > 2) your > 'branch' did not occur until Dec 30. > I don't branch for beta or release candidate, only for final release. See later. > > I don't see how you can release a new JALLIB that hasn't been tested > with the official release of the compiler. > What about testing with all 2.4m beta ? That's what they are for. > > A simple browse of the SVN online, of your 'release branch', shows > sample files being modified on Dec 24th, for example. > Interesting, I wonder how could that happen. Any link ? > > Did anyone, test anything, between Dec 26th and Dec 30th? I didn't. > > This 'team' made a bad mistake, but I'm not giving up. We can > improve. We should improve. We must improve. > Can you describe more precisely this "bad mistake" ? > > One suggestion, that I made already, is to make a 'release candidate' > branch or tag. Then we can test against it. And then release exactly > that, and nothing new slips into the release. > > Creating branch is possible, but I wonder if it's really useful. Remember not everything is taken from SVN to put in release package. TORELEASE tells what to embed. Once upon a time there were "unvalidated" and "validated" map in SVN, acting like "dev" and "torelease". It was too much pain to maintain. Cheers, Seb -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
