Hi, Brad Davis wrote: > Why not do 8.15.99.X, where X is the number of the RC?
>From my understanding we don't want to do Beta/RC testing because nobody really tried these builds. We only want to make sure that the release tarball works. So this is more like Mozilla's release workflow: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases/Checklist Mozilla pushes the final build/packages to their mirrors and do final smoke tests (do these builds install, start...). If they don't find a show stopper they'll announce the release. However if they run into any problems they will silently skip this version. They will never ever replaces a pushed build without touching the version number. So instead of announcing firefox-43.0.0 they would skip to firefox-43.0.1. This way they don't have to deal with anyone who maybe have downloaded the not announced version. To be clear: I don't like the _filename_ of the source tarball. It will get cached. So if we will ever have to replace the proposed release source tarball I bet that someone will run into problems. Different URLs can help, but in the end you add checksums on files, not URLs. Imaging situations like A: "Uh, test1.sh is missing!" B: "You are right!" C replaces the tarball with a fixed version. Maybe C decides to add another late fix... D: "No, I cannot reproduce! But test42.sh is missing for me instead" A: "test42.sh? Never seen that..." If A, B and D would talk about specific named releases this would never be a problem. -Thomas _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE THAT.
