Windows installer release rights for Andreas (was Re: [daisy] Daisy 2.1 Release Candidate available)

[Andreas Deininger]

2007/8/1, Bruno Dumon <bruno at outerthought.org>:
> On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 15:15 +0200, Andreas Deininger wrote:
> > 2007/7/31, Bruno Dumon <bruno at outerthought.org>:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Daisy 2.1 Release Candidate is now available. Thanks to everyone who
> > > contributed to this release.
> > >
> > > Downloads:
> > > http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=176692
> >
> > I just finished the compilation of the two windows-installer files for
> > RC1 and would appreciate if I (or you) could upload them to
> > sourceforge so that they are available for testing. My source forge
> > login is deining.
>
> Andreas,
>
> Thanks a lot for taking care of this. AFAICS you already have the
> necessary rights.
>
> Anyway, I'd like to clearly state the following release conventions:
>
> - the release you upload should be build from an export of the tagged
> 2.1-RC sources. If there have been any required (committed) changes to
> the Windows installer code after tagging, it is acceptable to copy just
> these changes, but _everything_ outside the Windows installer should be
> left untouched. (maybe mention the SVN revision of the Windows installer
> code in the release notes when uploading)

I've built the installer files from a fresh checkout of the 2.1-RC
tag. That's also why I encountered these small glitches in the
template file.

> - if you would notice an error in the installer and like to fix it, and
> upload a new release, the new release should have a new version number
> (like 2.1a), not replace the existing version.
>
> These conventions are necessary since otherwise the version numbers are
> rather meaningless.

I will comply with that.

> > PS: I ask myself whether the debian package of daisy (DSY-489) will be
> > an official part of the daisy 2.1 release.
>
> I don't suppose so, since it's been left untouched. IMO such a package
> is also of limited use when there's no automated upgrade path.

Why don't we let the community users decide (by their download votes)
whether a debian package would be useful or not?
I fully agree that an automated upgrade path would be highly
desirable. However, this is some kind of self fulfilling prophecy: if
we don't have a initial file release, we won't have the possibility
for an upgrade path. and so on.
There already was an upgrade path built in the debian installer, so
the ground is already laid. If the changes are minor (like from 2.0 to
2.1) we might even be able to provide that feature in the future. If
files were released now, I'm willing to commit myself to that in the
future.

Regards
Andreas