Hi, [X] A - Releases following a failed release can reuse the same version
It took me a while before making my decision. The Felix release process is pretty complex right now and not adding complexity is good. Especially, when you already have a technical release process which is for iPOJO a lot of tests (several Vms, several OSGi implementations, several versions of the configuration admin / event admin...), updating the version (because you forget to update something in the NOTICE file) has a lot of consequences (re-upating the versions, reconfiguring the tests, re-run all tests...). The risk for a user to get a wrong release or more or less limited to people from dev@felix.apache.org, which are somewhat aware of the staging / voting steps. I agree, there is still a risk that somebody checkout the complete Felix Releases from our SVN, build all of them (which probably takes more than 72 hours), and select an ongoing release. I forget the download from a staging repository, because the only way to get the url is inside the [VOTE] mail, which is kind of clear about the status. (I ignore the people downloading the release candidates for testing/checking before sending their vote, who should also be aware of the status of the release). For from my point of view, the issue is quite limited, especially if we reduce the number of rejected releases... I think, the issue with our release process itself: - no way to automate the legal files creation - no way to automate the verification - as we focus on modular projects, the maven release process is hard to use (and so re-cutting a release is painful) So, we should focus on a simplification of the release process or providing tools to make it more 'robust'. At one point of time, I've developed a tiny tools checking a release. It checked the signatures, the presence of the legal files, their content (based on the content of the bundle and the import-packages), the copyright years, the project build-status (mvn clean package), the existence of the tag, and so on. I've stopped the development of this tools because of the new NOTICE/DEPENDENCIES which was unclear at that point of time, and the apparition of multi-module releases which were not supported. But in fact, writing such tools was easy. In addition, Felix has started refactoring our parent pom file to partially automate the generation of legal files, this would be the perfect solution. So, I'm looking forward those progress, and will on my side try to get this tools back to work. Regards, Clement On 04.02.11 09:50, "Guillaume Nodet" <gno...@gmail.com> wrote: >Following the discussion, I'm starting a vote to decide on a policy >for failed releases. > > [ ] A - Releases following a failed release can reuse the same version > [ ] B - Releases following a failed release must use a different version > >The vote will be opened for at least 72 hours. >Happy voting! > >-- >Cheers, >Guillaume Nodet >------------------------ >Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >------------------------ >Open Source SOA >http://fusesource.com
