[bazaar] [ANN] bzr-2.5b3 has gone gold !

[Martin Packman]

On 10/11/2011, Vincent Ladeuil <vila+bzr at canonical.com> wrote:
>
> Right, the problem is that not all packagers seem to be subscribed to
> bzr-packagers[1] and that the common understanding is that 'going gold' is
> clearly intended to apply to the source release.

Using the current terminology seems more confusing than just saying
"[ANN] bzr-2.5b3 source ready for packaging" or similar. As a term of
art 'going gold' implies about the right thing, but it sounds too
shiny to the ear for general listeners.

It's further confused by <https://launchpad.net/bzr> announcing the
latest version is 2.5b3 which only has a tarball, rather than 2.4.2 or
the previous beta. Perhaps the expectation is most users go through a
less developer-oriented gateway, like the wiki, pypi, or one of the
other aggregation sites.

Jonathan also noted that being able to re-roll the tarball in response
to packager feedback is useful. I agree that tagging a source release
without seeing if it has build issues on some platform or other is
suboptimal, but think the tagging first approach we have now is
probably the right compromise. There's too much manual work for
certain platforms to justify a RC each time, over a redo when
something goes wrong. The right solution here in the long term, is to
get the packaging well enough automated that we do it continuously for
trunk and run the test suite against the installed versions.

Martin