Build and Integration schedule -- skip weeks

[Joseph D. Darcy]

Paul Hohensee wrote:
> Could also just build b60 to be identical to b59.  I.e., the only 
> difference
> between b59 and b60 bundles would be the build number.

That would be preferable to skipping a build number.

-Joe

>
> Paul
>
> Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
>> Mark Reinhold wrote:
>>>> Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 08:20:13 -0700
>>>> From: xiomara.jayasena at sun.com
>>>>     
>>>
>>>  
>>>> I was under the impression that b60 was going to be the last build for
>>>> M3 and according to the Calendar here:
>>>> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/calendar/
>>>> it shows that b60 is the last build for M3.  Are we saying that b59 is
>>>> now going to be the last build in M3 then?
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Build 60 is the last scheduled build for M3.  It's the showstopper 
>>> build.
>>> If we need it, we'll do it; if we don't, then we'll skip it.  I suggest
>>> you leave 60 in the schedule until we make that decision.
>>>
>>> If we skip 60 then that does raise the question of whether what's now
>>> called 61 should be renamed to 60, and so forth for all following 
>>> builds.
>>> Personally I'd prefer to keep the present numbering and just 
>>> document the
>>> fact that we skipped 60.  I tend to view build numbers as part of the
>>> calendar.  If you don't do something on a particular day then that
>>> doesn't mean you remove the day from the calendar, it just means that
>>> you do it on some later day.
>>>
>>> What do others think?
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> I'd prefer to renumber b61 to b60 is b60 is skipped.
>>
>> I think it is less confusing long term to have the build numbers be a 
>> dense consective sequence of integers.
>>
>> -Joe
>>