Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E97AB7E05 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:23:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 47592 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2011 01:23:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 47554 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2011 01:23:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 47546 invoked by uid 99); 21 Oct 2011 01:23:37 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:23:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of nslater@tumbolia.org designates 209.85.214.52 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.52] (HELO mail-bw0-f52.google.com) (209.85.214.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:23:30 +0000 Received: by bkbzs2 with SMTP id zs2so5925435bkb.11 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:23:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tumbolia.org; s=google; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=7xbuUlLNtD1lY2APlajNk3835yv5Q8jo9ohf7g+aTeU=; b=UbuDGEo/TcqsbHYAXt6gYe0Zc3mdqUpOst9CzlP6kmRajGdRO4/n1zLzKpv8cbeV0s EjkQqmAhhJjS14FAbRkUPjiKVrFmQ4oMaMIGhZ0eF+iTTuO9ReN3xa/yZa1kfaP1SFrU 7vW8IXBiYzeqTPjWjjGgbc3k5cdZy3a3tlj68= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.151.217 with SMTP id d25mr9293114bkw.88.1319160189792; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.40.195 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:23:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [87.198.113.211] In-Reply-To: <4FD791CC-15A9-4FE9-97B6-76D1B2BD850C@spy.net> References: <6BC9C06A-D317-409F-83E8-F898CAB3A617@spy.net> <6B64ED84-544F-4C84-9DD4-D794AD025380@spy.net> <82F3E1E5-A9C7-4EC7-BEBF-E4BAD753AF85@gmail.com> <4FD791CC-15A9-4FE9-97B6-76D1B2BD850C@spy.net> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:23:09 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Tweaking the release procedure From: Noah Slater To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175def9a83b00f04afc4ea24 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0015175def9a83b00f04afc4ea24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Dustin Sallings wrote: In the above example, if someone downloaded and is currently running > 1.1.1-rc1 and he looks at the list of tags and sees v1.1.1, v1.1.1-rc1 and > v1.1.1-rc2, why would be confused? More importantly, you released that, so > why would you not want the user to be able to see whether any changes > between 1.1.1-rc1 and 1.1.1 final affect his deployment? If someone has downloaded and is running an artefact from a botched release vote, our release procedure has failed us catastrophically. Nobody should EVER be running these as-of-yet-not-approved release artefacts. Except for testing and voting, obviously. Hence, the only reason you'd want to see what the changes were between 1.1.1-rc1 and 1.1.1 would be for testing a second round of voting. Perhaps we should eschew the "release candidate" nomenclature if it is causing these problems? I am worried that we might be sending the wrong message to our users who expect this terminology to mean something else entirely. Oh, and Sorry about replying in a piecemeal fashion! --0015175def9a83b00f04afc4ea24--