On Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:15:53 Cyrille Berger wrote: > Hi, > > As a reminder, our current layout is: > Week 0 -> tag alpha > Week 3 -> branch and tag beta > Week 6 -> tag RC > Week 9 -> tag final > > After some discussions, it has been suggested to do the following > layout: > > Week 3 -> branch and tag beta 1 > Week 6 -> tag beta 2 > Week 9 -> tag final > > The rational was that alpha are just snapshots, probably not worth much > and still require some work (especially in the marketing department).
That is not necessarily a bad thing. True, it is work, but it leads to some PR. But I agree I don't think it's worth it. > As > for RCs, the rational was that it is not very understandable what a "RC" > is, while beta is a much wider acknowledge term for "not stable (and > might kill kittens)", the second thing is that the version label is part > of the tag, and once the tarballs are given for packaging it is a bit > tricky to change the version, which might be a bit iky if we discover a > severe bug between tagging and actual release. > > So anyone has any object to the new layout, with no alpha, and two > betas and one final ? No, I think the suggestion is good. But 9 weeks is just 2 months. I think that's far, far too short for a full release cycle. _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
