incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Tag 1.7.0rc1?
Date Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:03:09 GMT
I think the only difference between an rc and a patch release is whether we
did it before or after the end of the month. I think this does make a bit
more sense, since you can tell people to expect bugs in the  x.x.0 releases.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:

> Other than the labels for the tags isn't that what we're doing?
>
> On 4/23/12 11:57 AM, "Simon MacDonald" <simon.macdonald@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This may be the wrong thread but can we just start versioning like this:
> >
> >1) tag 1.7.0
> >2) dammit found a bunch of regression bugs
> >3) tag 1.7.1
> >4) crap one more bug
> >5) tag 1.7.2
> >6) phew, regression passed
> >7) Release 1.7.2!
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >Simon Mac Donald
> >http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
> >
> >
> >On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Bada 1.2 has been tagged 1.7.0rc1
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Android has been tagged 1.7.0rc1.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > JS tagged 1.7.0rc1
> >> > >
> >> > > On 4/23/12 11:24 AM, "Herm Wong" <herm.wong@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >webos has been tagged 1.7.0rc1
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> From: fil@adobe.com
> >> > > >> To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > >> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:13:56 -0700
> >> > > >> Subject: Re: Tag 1.7.0rc1?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Let's tag it!
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On 4/20/12 10:55 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bowserj@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >Hey
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >I know that we just tagged 1.6.1, but we should probably
tag
> >> 1.7.0rc1
> >> > > >>this
> >> > > >> >week so we can get a week of testing, bugfixes, etc in
before
> >> moving
> >> > > >>on to
> >> > > >> >1.8.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >BTW: Once we're done whatever we need to do with 2.0,
can we
> >>just
> >> > > >> >increment
> >> > > >> >by numbers if we're going by cadence? It'd clear up a
lot of
> >> > confusion.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >Joe
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message