geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Subject Re: 1.0 release Candidate 2...some guidelines
Date Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:00:46 GMT
Hash: SHA1

I second that.  So long as we do not make an actual tag w/ that date,
i.e. have a time series of release candidates in the tags directory.


Matt Hogstrom wrote, On 12/15/2005 9:12 AM:
> Good idea Paul...I like the date time string idea.
> Paul McMahan wrote:
>> On 12/15/05, Matt Hogstrom <> wrote:
>>> Second, someone pointed out (I think it was Jacek) that we did not
>>> include
>>> a
>>> notation in the binary about what the release candidate was so that
>>> it is
>>> not
>>> confused with the final release.  Before releasing another cut I would
>>> like the
>>> naming convention of the binary and the directories to be clearer as to
>>> what
>>> they contain otherwise this will get confusing.  My suggestion is
>>> that the
>>> name be:
>>> geronimo-jetty-1.0-rc[n].tar.gz for example.  Where [n] is the number of
>>> the
>>> release candidate (and we are now on number 2).  The next set of images
>>> should
>>> follow this convention to ensure we are not confusing the users.  I know
>>> these
>>> are release candidates and this isn't required but it would make me
>>> sleep
>>> better
>>> at night :)  The directory that is actually contained in the zip will
>>> still be
>>> geronimo-1.0.  Thoughts?
>> Matt,  including a notation in the filename seems like a good idea and
>> could
>> help prevent confusion.  I've also seen projects use a date string
>> instead
>> of a release candidate number for this purpose.  Using a date string is
>> helpful since it makes it obvious when the image was created plus avoids
>> publicizing how many unsuccessful attempts there have been (not saying
>> that
>> would be an issue in this case :o)
>> Best wishes,
>> Paul

Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -


View raw message