On Tuesday 30 June 2009 23:03:30 Tom Albers wrote: > Op Monday 29 June 2009 15:44 schreef u: > > On Monday 29 June 2009 13:52:34 Sebastian Kügler wrote: > > > It's not so much stress, but usefulness of the RC for us. If people > > > report against RC1, and it isn't what RC1 is, the bugreport (which is > > > in principle exactly why we do an RC) becomes less useful. > > > > > > The problem would be solved if: > > > > > > - the packages are only spread when the RC is actually out > > > - the packages that are spread before that are not called RC, but > > > something indicating that it's indeed a more or less random snapshot > > > > In general: > > > > Sure, if you want us to not release anything before your announcement we > > can do that. But making packages available to a limited amount of users > > (in our case the repo is only known to those who read our developer > > mailing list) increases the chance to find showstoppers and not just > > build problems. > > > > If there would be a way to have drkonqi sent the build date or even > > better the svn revision number this "problem" would be solved. > > > > > > About the current RC1 packages: > > > > I don't see the problem of our current kde-unstable repo. We provide the > > latest packages that were build from the sources available at ktown. The > > release of RC1 is scheduled for today. So if there are no major retagging > > planned our packages should be identical to what will be called RC1. > > There are some unofficial repos for arch which provide svn snapshots for > > Arch; maybe that's the source of the confusion. > > > > Maybe you could point us to some reports to make it easier to understand > > the issue.
> In the end, it is all a matter of communicating. We should wrap up a small > document with what we expect from distro's and what not in each stage of > the process. Can be small and to the point. Anyone in writing mood? If we manage to get a 'random snapshot' into 'releasable tarball with source code' in less than a week, and it distros are quicker shipping it, we could consider shortening the period between tagging and release (which currently effectively is 8 days). Maybe make it 4? That would mean we tag on Friday, and release on Tuesday, with possible slippage into wednesday. Especially for -rc or -beta releases, that would mean "fresher" bugreports. I might be missing a good reason to keep that period longer, in that case, speak up. -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ release-team mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
