On 23/04/2008, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A bit of explanation for what goes next (Matthieu, correct me if I got > anything wrong), and I'm working this form back to front. > > We want to make 1.3 the first official Apache release of Build. That means > making sure there are no outstanding issues, all test cases pass, > documentation is up to date, and we don't have any licensing issues. The > official release is held up to the Apache standard, and will be posted on > the incubator Web site. > > To make that happen we need a formal vote o buildr-dev, followed by a formal > vote in the PMC (Project Management Committee), that's 72 hours for each > one.
Actually, it is 72 hours, AND at least 3 +1 ... That make sometimes a big difference, mostly for the official vote done by the IPMC (which is the officical one. The first one done by the PPMC is mostly for learning the process) > we have two > options: > > 1. Immediately make a RubyForge release. Separately follow with PMC vote > to make an official Apache release (another 72 hours). The Web site will be > updated as soon as the RubyForge Gems are available. > > 2. Follow with a PMC vote, when that gets approved, make both RubyForge and > Apache releases. > With the first aproach, that means that you personally take buildr and redistribute it by yourself. If you do that, I would expect to have a clear indication that it is NOT Apache Incubator Buildr 1.3, but that it is buildr-arkin-20080424. Do you see the difference? Personally, I would clearly go to the aproach 2 by respect for the people who are working to review Buildr 1.3 and who will feel bypassed if you make your own parallel release. -- Gilles Scokart
