[GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

Helena Mitasova hmitaso at ncsu.edu
Tue Mar 3 17:55:15 PST 2015

I agree with the suggested modification by Moritz,


Helena Mitasova
Professor at the Department of Marine, 
Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
and Center for Geospatial Analytics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
hmitaso at ncsu.edu
"All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.” 

On Mar 3, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Moritz Lennert wrote:

> On 01/03/15 19:02, Markus Neteler wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler at osgeo.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Scott Mitchell <smitch at me.com> wrote:
>>>> Agreed, and I like Markus’ idea of testing it on an upcoming release.
>>> (just a low priority comment here)
>>> While doing so it turns out that one week between RC2 and final is a bit short.
>>> And some urgent fixes came in only during the RC procedure. We need to
>>> [add] a phrase if this requires a new RC (not this time though!) or not
>>> or depends.
>> Overall, we got the release out :-)
>> Any opinions on above remaining issue?
> I think that with time we will get better at this procedure and the one week limit should be ok, but I have no objections to add a phrase to step 6 such as
> "A final, concerted bug squashing effort by all developers of no more than one week. During that same time the release announcement is drafted. If an important bug is discovered for which a fix needs some more testing, an RC3 can exceptionally be published, with another week of testing before final release."
> Moritz
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

More information about the grass-psc mailing list