On Mar 29, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
-1
We'll ignore this as it isn't a vote :)
Whilst I agree with the intention, we do not have a process defined that would allow us to generate a reproducable release. This led to several of the issues with the last M3 release that ultimately made is unusable. We must fix this before we can release another version.
Specific things I think we need include in such a process:
* an mechanical process for producing the candidate binaries that can be
executed against any SVN tag. This would reduce the potential for
minor variations by people doing the release that would result in
potentially different binaries
Yes
* elimination of SNAPSHOT dependencies - these are by nature ephemeral making it impossible to later regenerate the same distribution
Yes
* a testing/review period that is at least comprehensive enough to catch
the blaring defects that plagued M3
yes
* verification that the src bundle actually builds and results in the same binary as we are distibuting
Yes
All of these were the standard way for other projects I've been involved with. No argument.
But can we, with this in mind, first discuss going forward w/ a release? We're going to have to bang out a real release process for 1.0, and this is a good opportunity to get started. I volunteer to help.
geir
I am sure there are more -- Jeremy
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:(From a tangential discussion on pmc@, this came up and Alan noted this would be better discussed here, so I'm just moving it here....)
It's been 5 months since the M3 milestone release, and a *tremendous* work has gone into the project since then.
We think we're functionally complete (or very close), so is now a good time to do a milestone? I'm willing to help with the mechanics to keep Dain and David (and others) cranking on certification work...
Comments?
geir
-- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
