[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [ANNOUCEMENT] gnuarch-1.2.2rc2 release
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [ANNOUCEMENT] gnuarch-1.2.2rc2 release |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:37:33 -0700 (PDT) |
All that's great.
Mostly I want to emphasize this:
In theory, I have the right to raise a red flag and interrupt the
co-maintainer process.
I have no intention of doing that in any serious way if things
continue roughly along the current lines (though I expect steady,
incremental improvements to the quality of the process).
So: the primary accidental failure mode here is if we have a
disconnect --- if I appear to be blowing off the process when, really,
I don't intend to.
So: should it appear I'm missing some point -- please make the
first...third order attempts to sync with me (through any of our many
channels of communication) before deciding to toss me overboard.
So to speak :-)
I.e.: I *am* using ancient email software; I *am* very busy these
days; etc. If I miss a GNU maintainer cue -- odds are it is a
correctable accident rather than a cause to go apeshit on me.
Thanks,
-t
> X-42-Pre-Check: Attempted
> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:17:00 -0400
> From: address@hidden (James Blackwell)
> X-BeenThere: address@hidden
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
> Precedence: list
> List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish
<gnu-arch-users.gnu.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users>,
> <mailto:address@hidden>
> List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/gnu-arch-users>
> List-Post: <mailto:address@hidden>
> List-Help: <mailto:address@hidden>
> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users>,
> <mailto:address@hidden>
> Sender: address@hidden
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64-42mail (2004-01-11) on
> mail.42inc.com
> X-Spam-DCC: sgs_public_dcc_server: mail 1199; Body=2 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=2
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=4.5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00
autolearn=ham
> version=2.64-42mail
> X-42email-MailScanner-Information: Please contact
http://www.42inc.com/support.html for more information.
> X-42email-MailScanner: Found to be clean
> X-UIDL: d7b0b850b840dca96365e6274fb8678b
>
>
> jblack wrote:
> >> I have just cut and released 1.2.2rc2. This release candidate fixes a
> >> 1.2.1 regression that caused get-changeset to refuse get-changeset.
> >> Thanks goes to Aaron Bentley who stayed up extra late to fix it.
>
> -t wrote:
> > Could you please be a little bit more proactive about alerting me to
> > the impact of such things on making GNU releases?
>
> I intended to. Real life stepped in just after I had mailed the list,
> but before I could mail you. You'll get a private email from me on the
> same day an rc comes out. Promise. ;)
>
> > For example, I was assuming we were counting down two weeks from
> > 1.2.2rc1 before I was supposed to either make a release (expected
> > case) or raise a red flag (unlikely but that's part of what I'm there
> > for).
>
> We were, but now that rc2 came out today, the clock restarts, and now
> I'm hoping for a Sept 24 release. Though it may seem silly to throw away
> three days of testing time just for one lousy patch, its a consistant
> process so that everybody's on the same page, that makes sure that
> anything that goes out as an official release had a fair shot at
> testing.
>
> > Now I'm a little confused where I should be in my part of the process,
> > in your view. I gather the clock is slightly reset by rc2 but I'm not
> > sure precisely what the co-maintainers' expectations are regarding the
> > status of their work in relation to GNU releases.....
>
> You can review the rc at any time you like, but I suggest you give
> everyone ~ a week to catch the obvious stuff. After a week (7 days +- 1
> day), I'll send you an email with a subject along the lines of "RC 1
> WEEK OLD". At that point, I recommend you figure out when during the
> next week that you can audit the code.
>
> As with always, if anybody finds an rc regression, we'll either A) pull
> the regressing patch or B) fix the regression. Then, I'll cut a new rc
> and the clock starts over.
>
> If we find a bug during the rc process, that goes straight into the
> development line, but doesn't go into the rc process. Instead, it'll
> wait for the next rc, which will be coming along in about 2-3 weeks. As
> with anything, there *can* be exceptions. If a really horrid bug comes
> along, then I can be convinced to pull it into the rc, and treat it as
> if it were an rc regression.
>
> Btw, you're eligible for the prize too. If you find an rc regression and
> spend 20 minutes hacking up a test case and fix, then you get to have
> a night out at the movies on someone else's tab.
>
> The day before release (sometimes two if real life causes me to have to
> postpone release by a day) I'll send you an email with a subject along
> the lines of "IMMINENT FULL RELEASE for x.y.z"
>
>
> --
> James Blackwell Try something fun: For the next 24 hours, give
> Smile more! each person you meet a compliment!
>
> GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D 247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
>
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
>
>
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [ANNOUCEMENT] gnuarch-1.2.2rc2 release, Yann Droneaud, 2004/09/10