On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 18:46 -0500, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > On 1/23/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip> > > > I'm all for JCL 1.1, but IMO, the above approach should have been > > > discussed before posting these files. > > > > it's just a few files posted to my home directory for checking. there > > hasn't been a vote and no formal announcement. it's not a release, just > > a bad release candidate. > > > <snip/> > > I understand, but consider this timeline: > > a) We put up binaries marked for a release that hasn't been voted on > in personal webspace (but in the apache.org domain) > b) We post on the dev list / in bugzilla entries asking folks to try these out > c) Some do as suggested in (b) > d) Changes are made to the code and/or packaging, and the release takes place > e) Release is downloaded. Some in (c) update to correct binaries > diligently, some forget > f) We have differing copies of the same marked release out in the wild > > Marked as RC, things are different. FWIW, this was my concern. yep but IMO the risks of this happening are pretty low (it'll be replaced by another RC soon enough) practical problems only start happening when the following happens: g) someone uploads the jar to a repository something similar has happened before to a commons library and it causes trouble. so, the jar's need to be numbered. > > but thanks for highlighting the issue: i've had a chance to sleep on > > this and i think that they should have been versioned (even if that > > makes my life a lot more difficult). RC2 will be. > > > <snap/> > > OK, and sorry for any trouble. no trouble: you were right to highlight this issue - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
