[Development] Proposal to adjust release candidate process

Thiago Macieira thiago.macieira at intel.com
Fri Dec 23 16:42:12 CET 2016

Em sexta-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2016, às 13:27:30 BRST, Simon Hausmann 
> I find that the branch is relevant in this context, as it relates to the
> amount of patches going in. The amount of patches going in is IMO related
> to the probably of introducing regressions. The process around the release
> branch, as opposed to the "minor branch", as proven to be a useful
> mechanism for reducing the churn and making people ask themselves: Do I
> really want this change in this release or can it wait?
> So from what I think is one metric of quality (not the only one of course),
> the naming of release candidate is more meaningful.

How about this, then? We release beta2 from the 5.n branch right before the 
5.n.0 branch is created (or finally branches off). It accomplishes the same 
thing that Tuukka wanted: a release containing the code that is in the 5.n.0 
branch at the moment it is created, not a few weeks after with some round of 

And I really mean "the code that is in the 5.n.0 branch". Since the two 
branches at the same at that point, it's only a semantic difference which one 
we created the beta2 release from.

Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

More information about the Development mailing list