[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Sc-devel] SC3.2 RC 3 and SC 3.2 [was Re: APF fix]



What about mid february?
Then at least I have one week to check stuff on Linux before the final release.

sincerely,
Marije

On Feb 1, 2008 11:36 AM, Josh Parmenter <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> like i said... no problem to me.
>
> BUT... I think you should set a date Dan. A deadline is a good
> thing... something like, 'RC3 is out today, if no problems by >date<
> then it is 3.2'
>
> Josh
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Dan Stowell wrote:
>
> > 2008/2/1, Josh Parmenter <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> On Feb 1, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Dan Stowell wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Then, I think SC 3.2 should be out early next week (Tuesday or
> >>>> Wednesday).
> >>>
> >>> No. The release candidate needs to be out for long enough for
> >>> users to
> >>> actually use the thing. Leave it at least a week after 3.2rc3 is out
> >>> before we declare it the official 3.2. In normal circumstances a
> >>> week
> >>> would be a pathetically short time to have a release candidate out
> >>> in
> >>> the wild, but in our context here we're never going to manage
> >>> anything
> >>> better than that.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The main reason I think only a few days is needed is because there
> >> haven't really been any significant changes. I see this as a bugfix
> >> up, that mostly needs to be downloaded and ran. If users can do that,
> >> I don't think there is anything else that really needs testing...
> >> however, I was just suggesting times. We can space them out as much
> >> as
> >> anyone else wants (no problem to me).
> >
> > The point of the "release candidate" approach is that projects like SC
> > are extremely complex systems, and there may be subtle things about
> > our bugfixes that we don't realise, but which end up f'ing stuff up
> > for users. If it was just a question of checking that it could be
> > downloaded and ran, there'd be no point doing RCs, we'd just upload
> > the files, download them once to check, and announce the release.
> >
> > Sorry to bang on about this, but I think we need to invest some effort
> > in making *sure* that 3.2 is a really nice release, because of the
> > book connection in particular. The SC 3.1 release was untidy, since
> > everyone noticed problems *after* the release and ended up producing
> > 3.1.1 a few days later.
> >
> > Dan
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sc-devel mailing list
> > Sc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-devel
>
> ******************************************
> /* Joshua D. Parmenter
> http://www.realizedsound.net/josh/
>
> "Every composer – at all times and in all cases – gives his own
> interpretation of how modern society is structured: whether actively
> or passively, consciously or unconsciously, he makes choices in this
> regard. He may be conservative or he may subject himself to continual
> renewal; or he may strive for a revolutionary, historical or social
> palingenesis." - Luigi Nono
> */
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Sc-devel mailing list
> Sc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-devel
>