db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Preparing to cut the 10.4 branch
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:14:22 GMT
Dyre.Tjeldvoll@Sun.COM wrote:
> Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM> writes:
>
>   
>> Dyre.Tjeldvoll@Sun.COM wrote:
>>     
>>> Knut Anders Hatlen <Knut.Hatlen@Sun.COM> writes:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Dyre.Tjeldvoll@Sun.COM writes:
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> I did some experimenting, and here are the results:
>>>>> Alt A: With maint=0000001 and beta=true
>>>>> 10.4.0.1 alpha - (635861)
>>>>>
>>>>> Alt B:
>>>>> With maint=0000001 and beta=false
>>>>> 10.4.0.1 alpha - (635861M)
>>>>>
>>>>> Alt C:
>>>>> With maint=1000001 and beta=true
>>>>> 10.4.1.1 beta - (635861M)
>>>>>
>>>>> Alt D:
>>>>> With maint=1000001 and beta=false
>>>>> 10.4.1.1 - (635861M)
>>>>>           
>
>   
>> Hi Dyre,
>>
>> This part of our release process seems to trip up every new release
>> manager and the instructions could use some improvement. My
>> understanding of bumplastdigit is this: you run it after you generate
>> a candidate and it sets up the release id for the next candidate. In
>> any event, with or without bumping the last digit, option (C) produces
>> a release id that looks good to me.
>>     
>
> OK, so your vote goes to C':
> With maint=1000000 and beta=true
> 10.4.1.0 beta - (635861M)
> ?
>
>   
Hi Dyre,

To me that looks like a good id for a beta candidate. +1.

Regards,
-Rick

Mime
View raw message