I agree, and it does seem there is a bit of a problem with the nomenclature that the Julia team is using, which doesn't match industry wide practice. At least the first Julia release candidate is really just a beta release (i.e. after a feature freeze and branch off of current development), as it is known that it isn't really ready for release, and that known bugs/regressions are still being worked on.
Subsequent RCs may actually meet the definition of a release candidate. On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:34:21 PM UTC+2, David Anthoff wrote: > > So what you intend to call "release candidate" is a feature complete > build, with a list of known bugs that the core team still intends to fix > before a 0.5.0 release? I.e. in fact the first "release candidate" will not > be a candidate for a release, because of a known list of things that still > need to be fixed? I don't understand why you wouldn't just call that a > "beta", that seems the more common way to designate a build like that, > seems to much better indicate what that build is. But if you do want to > call it RC, then please make sure to communicate to the wider user group > that this build is actually not one that you might declare finished. And > then once you have a RC that is a true candidate for a release, please also > let us know. For me as a user and package developer, I do want to know > whether you think a given build is completely done or not. > > I think the more important question though is, where are you tracking the > bugs/regressions that need to be fixed before a 0.5.0 release (at whatever > stage of the process)? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] <javascript:> [mailto:julia- > <javascript:> > > [email protected] <javascript:>] On Behalf Of Keno Fischer > > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 11:18 AM > > To: [email protected] <javascript:> > > Subject: Re: [julia-users] ANN: steps towards 0.5.0 release [candidates] > > > > Anything that's not on the milestone right now will not be in the RC > (other > > than the cleanup tasks). > > The RC is there so that people can start fixing packages against 0.5, > without > > having to worry about having to do it again once the release is out. > We'll of > > course continue cleaning up and working on performance regressions, but > > we do need to work towards a release, so we can't block the RC on those. > > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, David Anthoff <[email protected] > <javascript:>> > > wrote: > > > This is fun ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > 7 “needs-tests” issues that haven’t been assigned to any milestone. 7 > > > “needs-docs” issue with no milestone assigned. 4 “heisebugs” with no > > > milestone attached, one with a “priority” label. > > > > > > > > > > > > Just by looking at any of these it is not clear whether they have been > > > triaged for 0.5.0, and if so, what the decision was. The main problem > > > will all of these seems to be that it is unclear whether a) no one has > > > decided about inclusion in 0.5.0 yet, or b) someone decided that this > > > would not go into 0.5.0. I think the milestone suggestion below would > > > allow a pretty easy management of that information. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] <javascript:> > > > [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>] On Behalf Of David > Anthoff > > > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 11:04 AM > > > To: [email protected] <javascript:> > > > Subject: RE: [julia-users] ANN: steps towards 0.5.0 release > > > [candidates] > > > > > > > > > > > > There are also 82 bugs that have no milestone assigned. Have these all > > > been triaged for 0.5.0 inclusion and it was decided that none of those > > > need to be fixed for 0.5.0? If so, how is that recorded in the issue > > > tracker? Might make sense to have another milestone named “post 0.5.0” > > > that simply indicates that someone from the core team made sure an > > > issue doesn’t have to be fixed for 0.5.0, but no other scheduling > > > decision has been made about that issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] <javascript:> > > > [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>] On Behalf Of David > Anthoff > > > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 10:58 AM > > > To: [email protected] <javascript:> > > > Subject: RE: [julia-users] ANN: steps towards 0.5.0 release > > > [candidates] > > > > > > > > > > > > +100 to having a release plan like this! > > > > > > > > > > > > There are 28 open regressions, I assume/hope those will be taken care > > > of before RC1? I.e. after feature freeze, but before RC, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > There are 22 open issues assigned to the 0.5.x milestone. The > > > description for that one says “Bugs to fix in the 0.5.0 or 0.5.x > > > timeframe”. Might be a good idea to make a call on each of these and > > > decide which of those have to be fixed for 0.5.0 (in which case they > > > should be fixed before RC1) and which will go into 0.5.1. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is one idea on how to handle this in terms of logistics: rename > > > the > > > 0.5.0 milestone to “0.5.0-beta” (or “0.5.0-feature-freeze” or > > > something like that). These are the items that need to get done before > the > > feature freeze. > > > Create a new milestone “0.5.0-RC1”, and assign those issues that need > > > to be fixed before RC to that milestone. I guess that should be most > > > issues with a “regression” label (but maybe not all, seems possible > > > that you decide to fix some of the regressions later), and some subset > > > of the issues with the 0.5.x label. If needed, create more RC > milestones as > > things go on, i.e. > > > “0.5.0-RC2” etc. Change the description of the 0.5.x milestone to say, > > > “Things to do in a 0.5.x release”, and anything assigned to that > > > milestone will definitely not be done for 0.5.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > Very exciting to see 0.5 come to a close!! > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] <javascript:> > > > [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>] On Behalf Of Tony > Kelman > > > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 10:25 AM > > > To: julia-news <[email protected] <javascript:>> > > > Cc: Julia Users <[email protected] <javascript:>> > > > Subject: [julia-users] ANN: steps towards 0.5.0 release [candidates] > > > > > > > > > > > > See https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/17418 for how this > > > process is going to go. Please keep any discussion on that github > > > issue focused so the noise level stays manageable. If you have any > > > questions or comments, you can ask them here (don't cc julia-news if > > > you do so though, that list is intended to be low-volume). >
