Open Stack

On 1 Jun 2015 10:50 am, "Alan Pevec" <apevec at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2015-05-29 18:30 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>:
> > On 2015-05-29 16:30:12 +0100 (+0100), Dave Walker wrote:
> >> This is generally my opinion as-well, I always hoped that *every*
> >> commit would be considered a release rather than an arbitrary
> >> tagged date.
> > [...]
> >
> > If we switch away from lockstep major/minor release versioning
> > anyway (again separate discussion underway but seems a distinct
> > possibility) then I think the confusion over why stable point
> > releases are mismatched becomes less of an issue. At that point we
> > may want to reconsider and actually tag each of them with a
> > sequential micro (patch in semver terminology) version bump. Could
> > help in communication around security fixes in particular.
>
> Yes, if dropping stable point releases, sub-version schema is still
> needed for clear communication in OSSAs and proposed continuous
> releases notes.
> One issue is how would we provide source tarballs, statically hosting
> tarballs for each and every micro version is not realistic, also those
> wouldn't be signed.

Sorry, but why isn't it realistic, and why wouldn't they be signed?

Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150601/1b2a501a/attachment.html>