-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Kowalczyk wrote:
What does the twice-annual release policy say about bugs and/or packaging errors that are identified and fixed within a very short time of the official release announcement?
Log message for revision 41228: Merge r41227 from 2.9 branch: Update Five to bugfix release 1.3.1. Changed: U Zope/trunk/lib/python/Products/Five/CHANGES.txt U Zope/trunk/lib/python/Products/Five/site/localsite.py U Zope/trunk/lib/python/Products/Five/site/tests/sitemanager.txt U Zope/trunk/lib/python/Products/Five/tests/adapters.py U Zope/trunk/lib/python/Products/Five/version.txt (...) +* Fix an adapter look-up bug in the local site implementation +that was due to an oversight during the port to Zope 3.2.
I'm building from svn, so it doesn't make much difference to me, but I was curious whether the circumstances (if any) that would trigger bugfix releases were documented anywhere.
I think the trigger is one of the following: - The release manager sees the prbolem, says "Oh, $#1^!", puts on the obligatory brown bag, and pushes one out ASAP (this one is typical for glaring security holes). - Some large-scale user (or upstream framework) is trying to make a release, and needs an unreleased fix. They lobby for a "third dot" release that their own deployment can then rely on. I haven't seen enough other cases to classify them. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDwaHr+gerLs4ltQ4RAjbVAJsEugXRYrz4yQZzN/0YYOk5OCQAdwCeL/hF T6VK1LTRBpc9bSKHLi/O6ik= =OqG6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----