Re: Release policy question

On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 10:22 -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > IIRC the only issue is that if you sign such a randomly-named file,
> > the signature isn't valid for the correctly-named file. Well, people
> > whose signatures count can rename the tarball locally before signing
> > it.

> I think that would get us into a degree of complexity we don't want.

> Simplicity is: you get handed an object, you test it, sign it, and
> post your signature.

> Complexity is: anything more than that :-).

Well, it's a little bit of complexity for testers, vs. a little bit of
complexity for users. There are a lot more users than testers.

> Re Greg's comments: I'm not 100% happy either with a method that can
> result in the first release in a series being something other than
> ".0". But I'm not 100% happy with the alternatives either, and at
> least we can always put something in the release notes explaining what
> happened, so those who bother to read the notes will not be confused.

We can post whatever we want, but some substantial fraction of people
won't see it before they jump to conclusions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 2 19:23:08 2006