[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: 1.4.0-rc2 tarballs up for testing/signing

From: David Anderson <david.anderson_at_calixo.net>
Date: 2006-07-15 18:20:37 CEST

* David Anderson <david.anderson@calixo.net> [2006-07-15 14:46:27]:
> Thank you *so* much Autoconf for this marvelous show of stability and
> compatibility.
> Okay, guess I'll roll again. Sorry about the mess.

So, after discussing this on IRC with jerenkrantz, it seems we are
disagreeing on what being an RC means, which is blocking working out
what to do next.

My understanding of an RC is that when we release one, we are saying
"Unless serious bugs are found, the final release will be identical to
this package" (minus the svn_version.h changes). Under this contract,
we need to reroll this RC, as changing the versions of the build tools
is something which can potentially change a lot of things, especially
with the autotools.

Justin's understanding of an RC is that when we release one, we are
saying "Please test this, and we'll take your reports into account
when rolling the final release". Specifically, the contract is much
more informal, and lets us release something in a state that we know
is unfit for final release, because we are just looking for wider
testing by downstream developers. Under that contract, we can release
RC2 once we have the correct number of sigs.

I disagree with this, because I feel that an RC tests both the code
itself and its packaging, and that it makes no sense to release an RC
with incorrect packaging, because downstream will be testing something
that will never be released, and that we know to differ from what will
be released. Thus, it is not an RC, it is a subversion package,
nothing more.

After going in circles for a bit, Justin and I agree to disagree on
this, and so I turn to you all to work out what to do next :-). So,
do we release rc2 with an incorrect autoconf (possibly rerolling just
the deps, so that they successfully build), or do we roll rc3 and put
that up for signing, with autoconf 2.59 across the board?

Finally, as a separate issue, a cry from the heart: I am getting sick
and tired of this kind of issue, which adds yet more delay to an
already crawling release process. Can someone please remind me to
make a large yellow note in the release process document when this is
resolved, so that we can stop debating on what an RC actually is on
each and every roll ? Thanks.

- Dave.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jul 15 18:20:14 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.