-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:59, Clark Williams wrote:
> Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what everyone thinks and I'd like to
> learn what the mechanism is for implementing it. Is implementation
> merely telling Jeremy or Jesse what branch to pull from? Or do we have
> to do more?
In other projects, upstream picks a time to make a 'release' of a
Then downstream distros, like Fedora, would decide when to consume
tarball and push it out to their users.
Personally I'd like to see 0.6 be The Shipped mock for FC6. Once we start
development toward FC7 (when we branch all packages for FC-6 / FE-6),
then look at either packaging a cvs snapshot of HEAD, or the mock
could pick a time to make a "0.7" release. Downstream, Extras, I would
package either the snapshot or the 0.7 release into development and our
rawhide users would get to beat up on it. Hopefully we'd be able
some sort of stability with the feature set of 0.7 by the time FC7Test2 or
FC7Test3 is ready to ship, and 0.7 could be "The Mock" for FC7 (neat that
the numbers line up...)
I agree that 0.6 should be shipped with FC6. I like the idea of
beating up the 0.7 branch on the development branch for FC7.
Soon we should figure out what feature set we would want to be happy
the magical 1.0 release of mock, and shoot for a timeline. Then the
Keeping in line with our razor-blade focus for mock ("we just build
packages in chroots"), I actually don't think there's much more to do
for 1.0. Once we are comfortable with the functional and security
aspects of the 0.7 mock, I'd call it cooked. Assuming of course no one
comes up with a killer feature that is :).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----