-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 22, 2008, at 6:54 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Hi everyone, >> >> I've volunteered to be the release manager for Python 2.6 and 3.0. >> It's been several years since I've RM'd a Python release, and I'm >> happy to do it again (he says while the medication is still >> working :). > > Can the PSF buy you more of the meds? =) Depends on the jurisdiction. :) >> I would like to get the next alpha releases of both >> versions out before Pycon, so I propose next Friday, February 29 for >> both. >> > > Since they are just alphas, sure. Not like I am going to make any > earth-shattering changes that soon. Cool. >> Guido reminded me that we released Python 1.6 and 2.0 together and it >> makes sense to both of us to do the same for Python 2.6 and 3.0. I >> don't think it will be that much more work (for me at least :) to >> release them in lockstep, so I think we should try it. I won't try >> to >> sync their pre-release version numbers except at the milestones (e.g. >> first beta, release candidates, final releases). >> >> I propose to change PEP 361 to outline the release schedule for both >> Python 2.6 and 3.0. I'm hoping we can work out a more definite >> schedule at Pycon, but for now I want to at least describe the >> lockstep release schedule and the Feb 29 date. >> >> I'd also like for us to consider doing regular monthly releases. >> Several other FLOSS projects I'm involved with are doing this to very >> good success. The nice thing is that everyone knows well in advance >> when the next release is going to happen, and so all developers and >> users know what to expect and what is needed from them. >> >> I'd like to propose that we do a joint release the last Friday of >> every month. For the alphas, it's basically what's in svn. This >> gives us some time to experiment with the process out and see if we >> like it enough to keep it going through the betas and final releases. >> >> Comments? > > If you want to do monthly alphas, go for it! But if you are going to > do that frequently is a source release going to make more sense than > doing binary builds? It very well might. See Christian Heimes's follow up re: Windows builds. OTOH, I'm okay if at least for the alphas, the binary builds lag behind the source releases, though I'd like to get the process as streamlined as possible. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBR8GunXEjvBPtnXfVAQIP0AQAo5F2tH1vXWbMAFGARZN576xopbQXSokX uVNXbeg5yjopCx38sHb5OCbublyIDOO8/2ubuuQ6uvAOJc3Br4BuMGHoC5ymQGqf 6pZYZLf4YUGLqFlYOB/huXpJPfH98RJJnK99zA8IQh4B7pN4xg14MF22gGij3Ybt z2hoy1EbYEk= =hW7b -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
