+1 to Tom's proposal. Thanks, dims
--- R J Scheuerle Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 to Tom's proposal. > > Rich Scheuerle > IBM WebSphere & Axis Web Services Development > 512-838-5115 (IBM TL 678-5115) > > > > > > Tom Jordahl > > > <tomj@macromedia. To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > com> cc: > > > Subject: RE: rc2 status > > > 09/30/2002 09:00 > > > AM > > > Please respond to > > > axis-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in agreement with Sam and Russell. I never voted for putting > *everything* in, nor did I agree with the message calling for such an > action. > > While I did have defects that I requested be merged in to 1.0, there were > for 1.0 targeted bugs ONLY. I am an automatic +1 to any and all > documentation and samples changes, because this is where users look first. > But I am NOT in favor of much more going in at all. This is why we > branched. > > In particular, a change of mine that did get merged in I sent a note about > Friday expressing my concerns that it needed a serious peer review and that > it had a medium-high risk factor on it. It only got a single +1 from Rich. > > Here is my proposal: > > 1. Release some sort of RC (2 or 3?) today with the 1.0 branch and all of > its changes. Get it in to the hands of the users - NOW. > > 2. Automatically merge any changes from HEAD to 1.0 in the directories doc > and samples but NOT src. > > 3. Authorize Sam to clamp down HARD (truck stopper mode) on any source > changes - i.e. automatic VETO on everything unless it is a serious > regression caused by all of these bug fixes. Russell and myself will back > him up with -1 votes on merge requests (unless its one of ours of course > :-). > > 4. Release 1.0 and get on with 1.1 on HEAD. > > Committers - what do YOU think? > > -- > Tom Jordahl > Macromedia Server Development > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell Butek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:06 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: rc2 status > > > > > > > I would really like to stop this Friday, so I agree with Sam. If you > notice, I've been silent on a number of the votes because I don't think we > need them for 1.0. I haven't gone so far as to veto anything, but I've > also noticed that some things didn't get the minimum 3 votes, so maybe > other folks are voting like I am by not voting? I myself have nothing more > to get in. The two items I opened a vote for last week (and which DID get > enough votes) were required to pass the JAX-RPC TCK, which could be > considered dork-category things - it would be somewhat embarrassing not to > pass the TCK when we've been saying all along that AXIS is a JAX-RPC > implementation. > > (By the way, Sam, any more thoughts on the lone failure in your automated > TCK run?) > > Russell Butek > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 09/27/2002 04:27:01 PM > > Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > Subject: Re: rc2 status > > > > Richard Sitze wrote: > > +1 to releasing ALL changes todate. > > The objective here is to slow down and eventually stop at some point. I > really would like to change the prevailing sentiment from "I see nothing > obviously wrong with that change so it should be included" to "I really > think that we would look like dorks unless that particular change was > included". > > - Sam Ruby > > > > > > ===== Davanum Srinivas - http://xml.apache.org/~dims/ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
