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

RE: Re: 1.5.0-alpha1 tarballs up for testing/signing

From: Daniel Becroft <Daniel.Becroft_at_supercorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:44:00 +1000

Hi all,

Apologies for interrupting.

Are there any plans to release compiled versions, rather than just the source tarballs during the prerelease (even if its just at the rc stage)?
Simply for those of us not up to compiling from source.

Cheers,
Daniel B.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Glasser [mailto:glasser_at_davidglasser.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2008 8:09 PM
> To: Karl Fogel; dev_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Cc: Mark Phippard; Hyrum K. Wright
> Subject: Re: 1.5.0-alpha1 tarballs up for testing/signing
>
>
> 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
>
> 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?
>
> --dave
>
> --
> David Glasser | glasser_at_davidglasser.net |
> http://www.davidglasser.net/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 23:46:57 CET

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