Subject: Re: [RELEASE] 0.9.3 schedule ?
From: Paul Rohr (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 24 2001 - 16:48:57 CDT
At 09:50 AM 8/24/01 +0200, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
>That would be nice if we could release 0.9.3 on Monday or Tuesday.
>There have been significant bug fixes.
>If someone objects, please tell us and explain the issues.
I object. (Wasn't that obvious?)
Dom and I started a public discussion last week about what our release
process should be. For details, see the following threads:
I see no evidence that there's consensus on what our release process should
be, and I'd like to see some discussion before we continue moving forward in
the current direction.
If I'm the only one who cares about this, say so, but simply going ahead
without acknowledging or responding to that discussion is uncool.
>I also suggest that we do a source-only release. This means that we announce
>the release once the source tarball has been validated and posted and let
>the binaries come after. That will help save some time.
This would, if anything, make the problems we faced with prior releases even
more likely. Tagging and announcing tarballs that nobody's built or tested
is the best way I can think of to increase the chances that we'll have to do
yet another brown paper bag release.
We can do better than that.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Aug 24 2001 - 16:42:26 CDT