On May 7, 2005, at 12:03 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:57:57PM -0500, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>
>> What would we say to rolling rc3 on Monday? Ben Reser, does that
>> work
>> for you? That would give us the weekend to vote on pending STATUS
>> items (of which there are currently 10, but only 2 or 3 have any
>> complexity to them).
>>
>> Assuming no showstoppers, rc3 would be the final candidate,
>> essentially identical to 1.2.0, which would be released one week
>> later. Of course, were we to find a bug in rc3 severe enough to
>> warrant rc4, that would re-start the 1-week resoak.
>>
>
> Monday evening works for me.
>
Great. So if breser posts tarballs on Monday evening (U.S.
timezones), then hopefully we'll have enough signatures to announce
rc3 sometime on Tuesday.
I'm little annoyed at the 2-3 day delays we've been having between
rolling and announcing the tarballs; maybe that's just the price of
our new signature-policy. But my impression is that we seem to get
three signatures for the .gz and .bz2 tarballs within a few hours,
and it's the win32 .zip files that are causing the multi-day delays.
Maybe we just don't have enough people who can build/test on
Windows? At the least, maybe Branko, Erik and I can prepare our
Windows systems ahead of time so that we know we're ready to run
tests on Monday night...?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat May 7 19:11:04 2005