Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: New Release Process (was: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0)
From: Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <D07D516B.1D1EC%aharui@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 18:06:03 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0DE25EDB-BB93-427F-9E23-1BCF53596E1B@classsoftware.com>
References: <D07D516B.1D1EC%aharui@adobe.com>
To: dev@flex.apache.org

Hi,

> I expected the next step is that you put up a release candidate and =
open a
> [DISCUSS] thread, but not a [VOTE] thread.

Fair enough. I have opens a discuss thread but had very little response. =
Given we had a discussion open for over a week and no major issues have =
been found what do you recommend?

>  If issues are found during the discussion phase, you can just drop a =
new package over the old package. =20

-1 to this as this will cause all sort of confusion to exactly what =
version an issue was in or what version people tested and this could =
more RCs rounds not less and a lot more work for the release manager.  =
There are also issues with caching so that people may think they are =
testing the latest version but are actually testing an older one. It's =
not a large amount of effort to number them as rc0, rc1 etc etc but not =
call a vote until the later rcs and there appears to be no outstanding =
issues.

> For TDF, because it is an =93app=94, if you want more feedback, it =
might be
> reasonable to post a deployed version of TDF somewhere like your =
personal
> folder

OK.

Thanks,
Justin=