How about:
... - final (new release) --------------------------- - alpha + build number - beta + build number (as soon as there is a release manager / we are working towards a new release) - rc1, rc2, ... (release candidates built or approved by release manager) - final (new release) --------------------------- ...
If we agree that the next version should be called for example 5.2, it will be called 5.2 all along the release process except if we decide it should be a major release. Then we do the renaming in or after the release candidate phase. Example: 5.2 alpha-X, 5.2 beta-X, [ major release decision ], 6.0 RC1, 6.0 Final.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:27 AM Tobias Pape Das.Linux@gmx.de wrote:
On 28.06.2016, at 09:36, marcel.taeumel Marcel.Taeumel@hpi.de wrote:
Eliot Miranda-2 wrote
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Ben Coman <
btc@
> wrote:
Release To Manfacture
I much prefer "final".
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Eliot Miranda <
eliot.miranda@
>
wrote:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 4:05 AM, H. Hirzel <
hannes.hirzel@
>
wrote:
+1 Makes sense.
BTW, what does Rtm stand for?
I'd like to know this too. No one seems to have answered this yet.
What
does "Rtm" mean? I know what RTFM means. Doesn't seem to fit here
;-)
And how will minor maintenance releases be marked, which happen from time to time?
As Tobias writes
SystemVersion current
does not return an 'alpha' suffix, this should be fixed.
--Hannes
On 6/22/16, marcel.taeumel <
Marcel.Taeumel@
> wrote:
images, doesn't I that, them can
http://forum.world.st/Renaming-Squeak-s-system-version-from-Squeak-alpha-to-...
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
RTM is not needed. After rc_n comes alpha plus the release with no
suffix.
I thought alpha always precedes rc's?
:D
Best, Marcel