I agree. We had B1 seriously evaluated by most (all?) active Cayenne
developers. So we have a base line. The rate of SVN changes on 3.0-
STABLE is relatively low. All of the changes are bug fixes and
documentation. So release evaluation can just focus on a "smoke test",
legal clearance and checking the commits history. That should
hopefully take less time compared to say putting a new RC in a
production environment. The good thing is that the end users will help
us with deeper quality control, but for that we need to churn the RCs
quickly.
Andrus
On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:11 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> On 21/01/10 9:23 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>> It doesn't have to be, although from slow voting on RC2, I guess as a
>> practical matter doing yet another RC is too painful for everyone
>> involved :-/
>
> Or else we could agree that this is "only" a release candidate. That
> is, everyone on the PMC doesn't have to verify the entire package in
> detail. We could treat the voting as a formality the PMC needs to go
> through and say "we trust that Andrus is doing the right thing and
> there is nothing going into svn which looks like a problem". That
> way we could release RCs more often (which would be useful), and
> still spend much more time reviewing the final 3.0 release package.
>
> Ari
>
> --
> -------------------------->
> Aristedes Maniatis
> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Jan 21 2010 - 07:40:23 EST