On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Daniel Rall <email@example.com> writes:
> > I'm saying it's simplest to call the new tarball x.y.(z + 1), if the
> > previous tarball was named x.y.z. I'm advocating that approach even
> > when nothing meaningful in the source code has changed between
> > tarballs. I believe we've done this in the past when a tarball has
> > been DOA.
> Yes, that's also what Greg is advocating. I'm +1 on it too.
> Sanity check: you also mean that if we put out X.Y.Z-rc3, and five
> minutes later we discover a trivial typo in a README, and reroll a new
> tarball before *anyone* has signed the RC, that we will still call the
> new tarball X.Y.Z-rc4, right?
> IOW, this applies to RCs as well as non-RCs.
I'm fine with that. The alternative would be to do away with RCs
entirely, but that might be oversimplifying the problem (e.g. it
removes the implicit "GA"-ness of our non-RC releases).
Received on Tue Jan 31 23:31:17 2006
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored