From: Jonny B. <tw...@no...> - 2009-06-09 17:13:56
|
I'm happy with going "straight to release" without beta etc, i was just asking. I agree that everything _should_ be regression proof in there, i guess i'm just pessimistic when it comes to software ;) IRC you on Friday jonny On 9 Jun 2009, at 15:28, WEBER Patrice wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanx Jyhem and Matwho for your kind words :) > > About the beta+RC+final, in fact I think it was just a proposition > from > Jonny, and I also think it should be OK to release directly without a > beta and an RC. > > All changes have been reviewed in details by the Quality Team and > things > should be OK. I think it's enough to just make a pre-tarball during > the > release, test it, and make the final release if everything is OK. > > Cheers, > Nyloth > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Marc Libs [mailto:jea...@gm...] > Sent: Tuesday 9 June 2009 15:54 > To: Tikiwiki developers > Subject: Re: [Tikiwiki-devel] Quality Team report [was Re: Proposals > for > 3.1] > > Hi, > > This is great news, and I'm glad the Quality team works fine. > Nice job Jonny, Sylvie & Nyloth. > I'm sure the workload should go down from now on. > > > On 6/9/09, Jonny Bradley <tw...@no...> wrote: >> >> Dear Tiki Devs > > >> I certainly wasn't expecting quite so many commits to branches/ >> proposed all at once, but hopefully that was an unusual occurrence - >> Nyloth diligently taking all the stuff that probably should have gone >> into 3.0 but was committed to trunk after the "freeze" (unfortunately >> that coincided with me being off-line for few days!) > > Yes, the "freeze" probably wasn't frozen enough. We saw big changes > all > around till the last moment, and then corrections after the release. > I'm sure we can do better next major release. > >> We're gradually working through them and Nyloth's suggesting we do a >> release (3.1 beta?) on Friday afternoon - i will try to attend (on >> IRC). I'm not sure quite how the minor release process will go, but >> i'd guess that one beta, one release candidate then release should be >> enough? > > This is obviously for the Quality Team to decide, but I find it > surprising that > a minor release should have a beta and RC. I never saw that anywhere, > and > the logic evades me. > Let me explain how I see it: this is a stable branche, and everything > between > 3.0 and 3.1 has been checked and validated by some of our best devs. > Anything > remotely risky has been rejected. No new feature, only bugfixes. > So my opinion is, 3.1 can only be better than 3.0 and should be > released "as is". > I doubt any regression slipped in, and even if that was the case, it's > better to just > correct it and release 3.2, than call everybody to test a so-called > beta, then a RC. > It's just too much work for everybody involved just to confirm that > all is OK (and > chances are, all is OK, since anything risky was rejected). > > Let's not create useless extra work for you guys (and for us testers). > We have > enough useful work in sight :-) > >> So, i better get back to it, just thought we should let you all know >> what's happening - happy tiki'ing! > > Oh, and thanks for all the reviewing, > Jyhem > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited > royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing > server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > Tikiwiki-devel mailing list > Tik...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited > royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing > server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > Tikiwiki-devel mailing list > Tik...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel |