Possible suggested schedule for 1.3b3

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Here's my plan... +1s or -1s?

    1. Rename 1.3b3-dev to 1.3b3-fc1.
    2. Announce a freeze on all commits to the code tree
    3. Expect people to update their CVS tree, compile and
       test for some time (24hours) to appease Marc
       (note: I've been saying that people should be
       doing this in anticipation of the release... For
       some reason this does not appear to have been
       enough.)
    4. Rename 1.3b3-fc1 to 1.3b3, and tag it
    5. We roll, announce release

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

Re: Possible suggested schedule for 1.3b3

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Here's my plan... +1s or -1s?
> 
>     1. Rename 1.3b3-dev to 1.3b3-fc1.
>     2. Announce a freeze on all commits to the code tree
>     3. Expect people to update their CVS tree, compile and
>        test for some time (24hours) to appease Marc
>        (note: I've been saying that people should be
>        doing this in anticipation of the release... For
>        some reason this does not appear to have been
>        enough.)
>     4. Rename 1.3b3-fc1 to 1.3b3, and tag it
>     5. We roll, announce release

I don't understand why this is necessary.  For the past dozen releases,
barring a few exceptions where it has been skipped with poor results, the
policy has _ALWAYS_ been to tag it, put a tarball up in a non-public
place, then wait a day or so.  This has found problems, not only with the
code but also with the making of the tarball (which can NOT be found out
any other way) numerous times.

This is nothing new.  It has been discussed and decided on in the past. 
Why is it suddenly a problem? 

I'm not sure there is any point in changing the version to 1.3b-fc1 or
anything; I have seen no need for this in the past.  Certainly people have
been testing it, etc.  But no matter what you do, there are far too often
problems that arise between than and between the tarball.  It simply makes
sense to give people a chance to go over the tarball before release; how
am I supposed to support release of a tarball that I have never seen?