On 5/16/06, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I won't cast a quality vote on anything but a tagged and rolled,
downloadable distribution. Many of the problems we've had in the past
(not just this time, but with other series too) appear in the final
product and are not evident in a checkout.
Well, there is a link to the upgraders wiki page in the Release Notes,
so it's incorporated by reference. I added a bullet to help
emphasize the link.
One reason the content on the updgrader pages is so useful is because
it's easy for developers to update it. The other documenation is kept
in
On 5/16/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the solution is to:
1. Make betas publicly available and widely known like our 1.1 betas were
+1. Based on this and other comments, I'd like to add the following
to the release guidelines [1]:
* Versions with significant changes,
On 5/17/06, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Ted and Paul that we should only vote on the actual
signed distribution that's going to be uploaded. It's easy to imagine
accidentally introduce a problem when you're building the final
distribution. I wouldn't be comfortable
The name changes resolve the ambiguities that I saw in the first draft
so that is a definite positive. The Messages.Severity enum and other
messaging improvements are a definite positive. (They satisfy my
desire for a Log4J type usage but are still distinct enough to avoid
confusion.)
Since the
On 5/17/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, so if you don't think this is the answer to the backwards release
then test problem, what is?
I don't know. Earlier 1.x releases had the benefit of the entire team
focused on them, and more people using nightly builds. That's no
longer the
On 5/17/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd guess 90+% of other open source projects seem to do just fine
doing all the testing and voting before the release.
I'm not aware of any project, open or closed source, that only issues
stable or GA releases without issuing any type of beta or
On 5/16/06, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/16/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the solution is to:
1. Make betas publicly available and widely known like our 1.1 betas
were
+1
I think the notion that we can't announce and mirrors Betas is a
misunderstanding. We can
On 5/17/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Announce and mirror are two different things. IIRC, Apache's general
guidelines on mirror are GA releases only (although we've probably been
among the folks that bypassed that policy on occasion).
The FAQ suggest that all releases be
