Proposed IcedTea 6 release

[Joseph D. Darcy]

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/8/8 Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org>:
>   
>> On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 08:56 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>     
>>> IMO we spend far too much time discussing these issues.  We need to make
>>> this standard procedure: whenever there are fixes for significant bugs we
>>> apply them to the current release branch and make a minor release.
>>> Whenever there are significant new features we make a major release.
>>> A lot of the discussion in this list is, IMO, a result of confusing
>>> these unrelated issues.
>>>
>>> The ARM port is all ready to go in apart from one minor problem.  This can
>>> be fixed in the next few days, I hope, and the testing can begin.
>>>       
>> Right. I think the confusion comes from where people think we are in the
>> release cycle. It would be good if we had more timed releases, say every
>> 6 weeks on a Monday (or something similarly random, but consistent).
>> Then it is clear that when the release manager says that a release is
>> coming, you know when you must have had your code in, testing done and
>> that a branch is imminent.
>>
>> Otherwise we get situations where there seems to be lots of discussions
>> because some people believe we are ready and are in testing mode before
>> a final release already and others think we are at the start of a
>> release cycle and new stuff can still be added and additional testing
>> needs to be done afterwards.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>     
>
> +1
>
> It would also be good to coordinate with Sun on this in order to time
> IcedTea6 releases against upstream OpenJDK6 build drops.  There is a
> known cycle for OpenJDK7
> (http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/calendar/) but none, as far as
> I know, for OpenJDK6.
>   

Yes, OpenJDK 6 builds have always been on an as-needed basis and not a 
fixed schedule, but builds are always needed for security releases.  I 
agree it would be reasonable for OpenJDK 6 and IcedTea 6 to coordinate more.

-Joe