RFC: Conditions of early access to unreleased

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, June 04, 2012 05:34:03 PM Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Monday, June 04, 2012 00:11:32 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Sorry for breaking threading.  I wasn't subscribed when this was sent, so
> > I had to copy/paste from the web archive.
> > 
> > > > So it turns I'm undecided and don't know if we should un-tighthen the
> > > > first
> > > > point to something like
> > > > 
> > > >  * Do not make the packages available to your users (in stable or
> > > > 
> > > > automatically suggested updates to stable versions) before the
> > > > official
> > > > tarballs are announced
> > > 
> > > I like this much better.
> > 
> > If this were the rule, we (in Kubuntu) could have official packages for
> > our
> > development release out significantly closer to release than we do as we
> > currently have to recompile everything after the packages are public to
> > get
> > into the official archive.
> 
> I'm assuming this is only referring to modules where the tarballs were
> unchanged from their preview versions, and that tarballs which were
> re-rolled would not be accidentally pushed to users before packages are
> re-built?

Yes.  Additionally, even when the packages have only been in private repos we 
increment the version number so that anyone who had the package installed for 
testing gets the newer version for sure.  That's why you may see version 
strings like 4.4.80a in Kubuntu packages.  

Scott K