It sounded like a single reactor release of everything to me... in which case staging is fine
On 21 January 2014 11:07, James Nord (jnord) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Or to put a contrived (yet realistic) example on this - Consider a > > > shared library Y. You have no auto testing of it so its only tested > > > inside products (otherwise you know its good to go - and wouldn't > > > release RCs). > > > Library Y is in a stage at version 1.2.3 This library is picked up > > > from the stage and placed into a product Z (inside say an RPM) > > > > > > > If you are doing this then you are using staging wrong IMHO. A stage > should > > *only* be used for either testing the staged release *or* for where > there is > > a synchronized deliverable that must be built from a different machine, > e.g. > > the windows .DLL and the linux .so's > > But it did not sound like that was the original authors request as he was > using RCs of dependencies (libraries). > So I felt like the solution of staging here would leave to a somewhat > similar example to that above. > > /James > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
