On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:45, Kris Popat wrote: > Hmm, reading through all the documentation we're pretty well covered for the > contents of release notes. Do we need a document explicitly called > RELEASE_NOTES?
If its already covered in the README then I'd be happy for it to go without this time as its the first release if everyone else is OK with that. (For each future release I'd like for us to create something like the "new and noteworthy" style of doc that Eclipse uses as I find those really helpful.) > On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:00, Kris Popat wrote: > >> >> >> On 17 Dec 2010, at 07:48, Scott Wilson wrote: >> >>> OK, we got a release branch! >>> >>> So what's next? I think the documentation looks OK. >> >> I'm just working on the release notes and signing the binaries. I'll put up >> the release notes today so others can check and amend as necessary. >> >>> >>> How are we actually releasing it in terms of binaries for download? >> >> >> For release the source package will need to be compressed both as .tar.gz >> and .zip. >> >> Do we want a binary release as well? >> >> We'll also need to test that I've signed the binaries correctly. >>> >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
