Re: [RFC] 3.1 branching

On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 21:12 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On tor, 2008-09-25 at 23:36 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> > Hmm, so rolling DEVEL + PRE + RC into one version called a.b.0.N
> > Well, I'm a little doubtful but can't argue against that yet.
>
> No, not quite.
>
> There is no point of DEVEL releases in the current form of the
> development cycle. So we skip those. The nightly snapshots is good
> enough for that purpose.
>
> PRE relesaes is the main needed release while trying to get the branch
> in shape. These is the 3.1.0.N releases where N >= 1.
>
> RC using the actual release version. The forst RC for 3.1 would be
> 3.1.1. And if fine (which it should be) this is the same tarball which
> then gets promoted to "stable for production use".

I thought we would use RC label for selected/last 4-digit releases.

> If there is a problem with the RC then there is two choices. Either skip
> the release number and number the "stable" release 3.1.2, or reroll
> 3.1.1. Which one depends on if the RC has been distributed. Quite often
> RC level errors is detected immediately even before announcing it to
> squid-dev..

If we use RC label for selected/last 4-digit releases, then we will not
have the above problems. If a 4-digit release proves stable, we post
3.1.1 (an exact copy of the last successful 4-digit release, except for
the version number) and mark the branch as stable.

Is there a reason we cannot have "stable candidates" using 4-digit
versions?

Cheers,

Alex.
Received on Thu Sep 25 2008 - 19:32:19 MDT