Re: Timetable for R3.14.9?

["Ernest L. Williams Jr." <ernesto@ornl.gov>]

Hi Andrew,

I like your new approach and think that your timetable is reasonable at
least for me.





Thanks,
Ernest L. Williams Jr.
SNS Control Systems Group
ORNL



On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 16:24 -0500, Andrew Johnson wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> We think it's about time for another release of the R3.14 branch of 
> Base, which will be numbered 3.14.9.  For this release I want to tag one 
> Pre-release version at feature-freeze, followed by as many weekly 
> Release Candidate versions as are needed to try and avoid the little 
> bugs that last time caused us to have to subsequently release versions 
> 3.14.8.1 and 3.14.8.2.
> 
> Here's what I'm proposing:
> 
> 1. All new features and architectures to be committed by 2006-11-20 
> (feature freeze).
> 2. Tag CVS with R3-14-9-pre1 at that time, and generate a tar file.
> 3. Encourage testing on as many architectures as possible, and accept 
> build and bug fixes to until 2006-12-01.
> 4. Tag CVS with R3-14-9-RC1, and generate a tar file for wide-scale testing.
> 5. If problems are found in this -RCn version, 7 days after the previous 
> -RCn was released (i.e. on 2006-12-08, 2006-12-15 etc.) tag the result 
> with the next -RCn value, generate another tar file, lather, rinse and 
> repeat.
> 6. If no problems are reported with an -RCn version in 7 days, tag and 
> release the latest R3-14-9-RCn version as R3.14.9.
> 
> Can I get a first reaction to this proposal and timescale from at least 
> the following key people, without whose co-operation the release will 
> not be possible:
>    Jeff Hill (Channel Access, Win32)
>    Ralph Lange (HP-UX)
>    Eric Norum (RTEMS, MacOS)
>    Janet Anderson (Build system, Win32)
>    Ernest Williams (vxWorks 6.x, Linux-x86_64)
> 
> If you are not named above and have ported EPICS to an architecture that 
> R3.14.8.2 does not support for which you are willing to donate patches 
> and perform testing, please feel free to include your comments on this 
> timescale.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Andrew