Build and Integration schedule -- skip weeks

[Paul Hohensee]

We'd need the bundle names to be "b60" and "java -version" to return "b60".

Paul

Xiomara Jayasena wrote:
>
> There is no really point in doing a promotion if nothing has changed.  
> Would a link for the skipped build to the previous build number 
> suffice, instead?
>
> -Xiomara
>
>
> 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.
>>
>> 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
>>>