On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Tal Rotbart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not release the Gem as a release candidate version? > Then, if the PMC vote approves it, release it again as a full release > as a gem and on the Incubator site. We only use RubyForge so people can do gem update and upgrade to the latest version, and that goes to the large audience of users out there who expect something stable. That release, we want to have a vote for, so we all agree it's ready to go, and once we put it there, it would be bad to take it back. So essentially this would be the same as the first option: make a release to RubyForge, followed by release to Apache. If the PMC comes back and asks us to fix anything, go through the same route again. Assaf > > > Cheers, > Tal > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Alexis Midon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > it's more about us as users than about PMC members (despite my respect > ;). > > > Solution #1 would bring confusion I think and might piss off many > users. > > > > > > And what if the PMC vote is negative? One non-apache release 1.3 would > be > > > in > > > the wild, available on Rubyforge while some updates would have to be > done > > > to > > > prepare a new PMC vote. > > > would you increment the version then? > > > > > > Absolutely. > > > > We'll make a fix, then repeat the process again for the new version > which > > includes this fix. Whichever option we choose, we won't have two > packages > > with the same version number but different content. > > > > Assaf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd rather consider rubyforge as simple file server, and stick to the > > > apache > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > 1. Create all package files, changelog and signature. > > > > > 2. Move those over to a public folder, where we can vote on > them. > > > > > 3. Following buildr-dev vote, upload these to RubyForge. > > > > > 4. Following PMC vote, upload these to Apache. > > > > > > > > I really think we should have the PMC vote first. Otherwise you > > > > unnecessarily get into gray area and might piss off some PMC > members. > > > > Why take the unnecessary risk? > > > > > > > > Yoav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > CTO, Intalio > > http://www.intalio.com > > >
