Re: The process for a patch release

Thank you for the clarification! The security release process certainly makes sense (not to publicly announce security holes). On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:41 PM Hen wrote: > Yes. You would just do it quicker (if such was truly needed). You would > still need at least 3 +1s, and

Re: The process for a patch release

Yes. You would just do it quicker (if such was truly needed). You would still need at least 3 +1s, and at the moment there is the crutch that you would also need 3 Incubator PMC +1s (or the first 3 would have to be IPMC). If it's a security vulnerability, then we would use private@ and confer

Re: The process for a patch release

I don’t recall where I heard that. Oh well, no worries. Vote it is. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 5:28 PM Hen wrote: > I thought a patch release was exactly the same as a full release; except > that there is less discussion of the features involved. > > Did you see a more

Re: The process for a patch release

Do we need a vote for a critical patch release? On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Meghna Baijal wrote: > Hi All, > A patch release is being planned for Apache MXNet(incubating) to include > some important bug fixes. > I want to confirm that for a patch release, there

The process for a patch release

Hi All, A patch release is being planned for Apache MXNet(incubating) to include some important bug fixes. I want to confirm that for a patch release, there is no RC and voting step. Effectively the process looks something like this - Step 1: Cherrypick all the necessary bugfixes into the