On 1 Jun 2015 10:50 am, "Alan Pevec" <ape...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2015-05-29 18:30 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org>: > > On 2015-05-29 16:30:12 +0100 (+0100), Dave Walker wrote: > >> This is generally my opinion as-well, I always hoped that *every* > >> commit would be considered a release rather than an arbitrary > >> tagged date. > > [...] > > > > If we switch away from lockstep major/minor release versioning > > anyway (again separate discussion underway but seems a distinct > > possibility) then I think the confusion over why stable point > > releases are mismatched becomes less of an issue. At that point we > > may want to reconsider and actually tag each of them with a > > sequential micro (patch in semver terminology) version bump. Could > > help in communication around security fixes in particular. > > Yes, if dropping stable point releases, sub-version schema is still > needed for clear communication in OSSAs and proposed continuous > releases notes. > One issue is how would we provide source tarballs, statically hosting > tarballs for each and every micro version is not realistic, also those > wouldn't be signed.
Sorry, but why isn't it realistic, and why wouldn't they be signed? Rob
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
