Heads up: IcedTea6 1.4 is on the way

[Andrew Haley]

David Herron wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> David Herron wrote:
>>  
>>> Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Andrew Haley schrieb:
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> 2009/1/28 Lillian Angel <langel at redhat.com>:
>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>> It would be nice to at least update the NEWS file with the actual
>>>>>>>> release date (and hopefully all the new goodies that went in).
>>>>>>>>                         
>>>>> No, this is quite impossible.  A release tarball is made and the
>>>>> release
>>>>> is tested.  Once that's done, the tarball is golden.  You do not go
>>>>> fiddling
>>>>> with files inside the tarball.
>>>>>         
>>> Or you could take a page from other kinds of QA organizations ...
>>>
>>> The FCS or GA tarball is the one that's undergone testing but prior to
>>> that tarball could be one or more beta or RC tarballs depending on your
>>> labeling preference.
>>>     
>>
>> That doesn't sound any different.  Obviously the tarballs must have
>> RC status until one of them passes the release criteria, at which
>> point it becomes the release.
>>
>> What's the difference?
>>   
> Maybe I missed something earlier in the conversation, if so please be
> patient.
> 
> You said "a release tarball is made" and "the tarball is golden".  That
> sounded like your process is simply to cut the tarball and that's it and
> it can't be changed.  Maybe you're saying there is some testing between
> those two steps that validates you can bless the specific tarball as
> golden.

"A release tarball is made and the release is tested.  Once that's done,
the tarball is golden."  I was kinda _assuming_ that the tarball passed
the tests, I admit.  :-)

> I fully agree once you've blessed a tarball any change is risky and can
> cause breakage.  Even simple changes like unpacking and changing a text
> file.  I've seen that happen.

Yeah.

Andrew.