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

Re: 1.5.0-alpha1 tarballs up for testing/signing

From: Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:59:02 +0100

On 2/26/08, David Glasser <glasser_at_davidglasser.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> wrote:
> > "Mark Phippard" <markphip_at_gmail.com> writes:
> > > No one wants to see us release software with bugs in it, but I think
> > > our goal should be to have a great GA release, not great alpha
> > > releases. The point of the alpha release is to get users to try it
> > > and report back on the problems that our test suite does not catch.
> > > We can't do that if we do not release them. Using this same line of
> > > reasoning, I would rather see us release these without the formal
> > > signature process. If a bad bug that is fixable is found, then just
> > > roll a new release. If we are not doing all the signature stuff it
> > > should be relatively easy to get a new release tarball up. After all,
> > > Hyrum is currently posting nightly tarballs. I think the benefit of
> > > the named alpha/beta releases is that the it easily shows up in svn
> > > --version and that makes it easy to talk to users and tell them when a
> > > problem is known and has been fixed.
> >
> > For alphas, I think Mark's ideas are quite sane.
> >
> > In fact, the demarcation between "alpha" and "beta" can be that we
> > sign the betas (and don't call them official until signed). The RC
> > tarballs would follow the same rules as betas, it's just that the
> > understanding is it's more serious, because it's going to be the
> > actual same bits as the release if it passes muster.
> So essentially the semantics would be:
> alpha: a tarball with no guarantees that it's been tested by anyone; a
> glorified nightly

This is fine with me, except that I don't think we should start
creating alphas more than once a week: I'd expect people who want to
test daily to use hyrum's nightlies; all others need some 'earmarked'

> beta: a tested and signed tarball that we know is unreleasable
> (because it still has a big release-blocking bug, or no CHANGES,
> or...)
> rc: a tested and signed tarball which we believe could be released, if
> no serious problems are found during the stabilization period.
> (Though of course we all assume that serious problems will be found in
> the first few rcs.)
> Does that sound right, Karl?

It sounds right to me (not being Karl though).



To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-02-26 12:59:25 CET

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.