On quarta-feira, 30 de janeiro de 2013 18.06.32, Mark Brand wrote: > >> It might be too late to fix (from my perspective) the RC naming > >> convention for 5.0.1, but I hope it will be seriously considered when it > >> next becomes possible. > > > > We need the arguments on why that is necessary. It adds to our work and > > necessarily postpones any release by 24 hours, with a possibility of > > failure in the rebuild process. > To summarize: > > 1. Source tarballs with same names but different content are confusing. > 2. Source tarballs with same names cannot be kept in a single directory. > 3. Ease of scripting downloading, unpacking, and building parameterized > with version string. > 4. Precedent. Why reinvent the wheel?
Ok, if this is going to be a problem, we can revert back to the old procedure. We'll drop the "-rcX" from patch releases and we'll refer to the candidate releases by build number only. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Releasing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing
