From: "Daniel Shahaf" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Axel Beckert" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Posted zsh 5.9
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:49:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
Axel Beckert wrote on Sat, 14 May 2022 23:35 +00:00:
> On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 11:21:26PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Axel Beckert wrote on Sun, May 15, 2022 at 00:11:31 +0200:
>> > Hi,
>> > On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 03:59:35PM -0500, dana wrote:
>> > > I've just finished posting zsh 5.9. It should be available in the usual
>> > > places:
>> > […]
>> > > creating-a-release instructs us to wait a day before posting to -announce,
>> > > which has always been followed a little loosely i think, at least by me...
>> > > but i'll do that this time, unless someone wants me to go ahead now.
>> > I'll upload it to Debian unstable anyway, I as I assume there won't be
>> > any changes anymore until tomorrow. :-)
>> I'd rather you didn't. Backwards compatibility promises don't kick in
>> until a release is announced, even if it has been tagged.
> IMHO having been uploaded is a bit more than just tagged.
Read "even if it has been tagged and uploaded", then.
>> If we pull the tarball for any reason, your users will get to keep
>> both pieces.
> If that happens, I'd expect that a 5.9.1 or 5.9a or something is
> released and 5.9 is never annouced. Like e.g. the ASF does with HTTPD
> releases. Not every 2.4.xy or 2.6.xy has been released (or at least
> not announced).
In such a case we might do the same and re-tag as 5.9.1, yes, but that's
not a reason to let users run 5.9 before it has been released (= announced).
>> Cf. https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion/README.html.
> That talks about release candidates, not about already publicly
> downloadable tar balls with the correct version.
I'm aware of that. I consider what that page describes to apply to
releases-to-be that have not been announced.
> Our -test releases are the release candidates from my point of view.
> And yes, of course I fully agree with that. That's why I uploaded all
> packages of release candidates to Debian Experimental, not to
> According to discusion in here, the reasons for the delay are also
> others. (I also remember from earlier discussions about the release
> process that SF's upload thingy is a bit fiddly and sometimes needs a
> few attempts to get their "newest upload" pointer right.)
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-14 23:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-14 20:59 dana
2022-05-14 21:50 ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-05-14 21:58 ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-05-14 22:27 ` dana
2022-05-14 23:26 ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-05-14 23:28 ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-05-14 23:50 ` dana
2022-05-15 10:36 ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-05-15 21:43 ` dana
2022-05-16 23:57 ` Phil Pennock
2022-05-21 1:31 ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-05-14 22:11 ` Axel Beckert
2022-05-14 22:31 ` dana
2022-05-15 4:33 ` Bart Schaefer
2022-05-15 6:00 ` dana
2022-05-14 23:21 ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-05-14 23:35 ` Axel Beckert
2022-05-14 23:49 ` Daniel Shahaf [this message]
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).