On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 13:50 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 21:34 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > > > Which is the time where 3.1.2 is labelled a RC. Tarball rolled, but not > > yet on the FTP server or announced on squid-announce, and labelled as an > > release candidate on the web server. > > > > Before that there is also the nightly snapshots which works well for > > testing of the upcoming release, so the number of times a RC fails > > should be nearly zero. But it's still a timeframe which is needed to > > ensure we do not label obviously broken releases as "stable". > > IMO, we do not have enough resources to label releases as stable. We can > only label whole branches. > > That is, I do not think we should do RCs for X.Y.2 and beyond. Once the > branch is declared stable, we do our best to keep each release that way. > There will be bugs, but we do not have enough resources to RC every > supposed-to-be-stable release after the first one (3.1.1).
Actually, RC should be issued for 3.1.0.47, not for 3.1.1. 3.1.1 is just a copy of 3.1.0.47 if the latter was proven to be stable. If not, we post 3.1.0.48. $0.02, Alex.
