Build and Integration schedule -- skip weeks
Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM
Fri May 8 10:07:04 PDT 2009
There is no really point in doing a promotion if nothing has changed.
Would a link for the skipped build to the previous build number suffice,
Paul Hohensee wrote:
> Could also just build b60 to be identical to b59. I.e., the only
> between b59 and b60 bundles would be the build number.
> Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
>> Mark Reinhold wrote:
>>>> Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 08:20:13 -0700
>>>> From: xiomara.jayasena at sun.com
>>>> I was under the impression that b60 was going to be the last build for
>>>> M3 and according to the Calendar here:
>>>> it shows that b60 is the last build for M3. Are we saying that b59 is
>>>> now going to be the last build in M3 then?
>>> Build 60 is the last scheduled build for M3. It's the showstopper
>>> If we need it, we'll do it; if we don't, then we'll skip it. I suggest
>>> you leave 60 in the schedule until we make that decision.
>>> If we skip 60 then that does raise the question of whether what's now
>>> called 61 should be renamed to 60, and so forth for all following
>>> Personally I'd prefer to keep the present numbering and just
>>> document the
>>> fact that we skipped 60. I tend to view build numbers as part of the
>>> calendar. If you don't do something on a particular day then that
>>> doesn't mean you remove the day from the calendar, it just means that
>>> you do it on some later day.
>>> What do others think?
>> I'd prefer to renumber b61 to b60 is b60 is skipped.
>> I think it is less confusing long term to have the build numbers be a
>> dense consective sequence of integers.
More information about the jdk7-rt