It seems to me that it is the same terminology (RC) as *Battle for Wesnoth.*
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:37:19 AM UTC+2, Scott Jones wrote: > > 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] [mailto:julia- >> > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Keno Fischer >> > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 11:18 AM >> > To: [email protected] >> > 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]> >> > 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] >> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Anthoff >> > > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 11:04 AM >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > 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] >> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Anthoff >> > > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 10:58 AM >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > 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] >> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Kelman >> > > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 10:25 AM >> > > To: julia-news <[email protected]> >> > > Cc: Julia Users <[email protected]> >> > > 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). >> >
