Am Montag, den 08.10.2007, 17:31 +0200 schrieb David Bateman:
Thomas Weber wrote:
Am Montag, den 08.10.2007, 12:34 +0200 schrieb Soren Hauberg:
John W. Eaton skrev:
On 7-Oct-2007, Soren Hauberg wrote:
| So, what does that mean? Essentially we have to make some 3.0 release
| candidate release about a week before 3.0 is actually released.
That's essentially what 2.9.14 was supposed to be, and (RSN) 2.9.15,
etc. It's just that we keep finding things to fix or tweak.
What I was suggesting was really to make a release at some point. Call
the a release candidate. And if nothing big comes up in the following
week release that. Currently it seems like we keep on fixing bugs, and
that nobody really knows when 3.0 is released. This isn't helpful to
people who want to create binary distribution. If we want binary
distributions on the day of the release, then we need to create an
unofficial release sometime before the actual release. This is what I
meant with a release candidate.
Did that make sense?
Are there objections to start with this process *now*? Bringing a
package with a new name into Debian can easily take more than a week[1].
So, we would like to package 2.9.14 as release candidate now, just to
have a package with the name octave3.0.
Objections?
[1] It needs manual intervention outside the realm of packagers.
Thomas
Does a RC release have to have a name like 3.0RC1? Can't we just say
that 2.9.15 is 3.0RC1? Is that sufficient for Debian?
Sure. In theory we could upload the 2.0 sources as octave3.0 (though
that would be *really* unfair to the our archive's gatekeepers). Package
names in Debian don't need to match the actual source package name.
I just proposed 2.9.14 because it's already out.
Obvious question: how about other distributions? Notably Fedora?