[Avocado-devel] Avocado release 85.0: Bacurau

[Plamen Dimitrov]

Hi Cleber,

On 3/2/21 6:36 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 01:30:09PM +0200, Plamen Dimitrov wrote:
>> I am confused about the release process of Avocado VT. First we had an email thread
>> about whether we should provide version tags in sync between Avocado and Avocado VT.
>> We didn't make any final conclusions on what was the final decision there so the release
>> of Avocado VT 83.0 signaled me that we will continue following the previous workflow.
>> Then however, there was never a release for Avocado VT 84.0 which meant we had decided
>> to drop and the conclusion was not to release the VT plugin in sync with the core, the
>> conclusion in the emails remaining unexplained again. Now I see that there is again a
>> tag for Avocado VT 85.0, suggesting that we keep the versions in sync again.
>>
> Yes, you should be confused because I made a mistake and forgot to tag
> and release Avocado-VT 83.0.  It was during the holidays, and I got
> cut off during Avocado and Avocado-VT release work.

I think what you mean to say here is about Avocado VT 84.0. It is also the missing tag
as I described above with "there was never a release for Avocado VT 84.0".

>> Is the missing 83.0 tag an error in the Avocado VT release process? Or is it intentional
>> and there is another decision about the releases many of us are still unaware of? What
>> would you state as a conclusion on the email thread about dropping VT from the Avocado
>> releases?
>>
> I guess you mean 84.0 (83.0 is tagged).  So, it was not intentional, it was a mistake,
> and the goal is to continue to have releases at the same time.

Yes, sorry my bad here, I mislead you here which is probably what confused you above too.

In any case, I have created an issue at

https://github.com/avocado-framework/avocado-vt/issues/2937

because we need to release in order to be able to release our plugin as well. More details
described within the issue.

>> Best,
>> Plamen
>>
> Let me know if that answers all of your questions.  And I'm sorry
> about the impact this has caused.

Yes, it makes things clearer. I think additional confusion arose exactly because we also
discussed whether to drop these tags or not before.

Thanks for explaining this,
Plamen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/avocado-devel/attachments/20210303/97039604/attachment.sig>