Mark, Thanks for explaining.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Mark Hindess<[email protected]> wrote: > > In message <[email protected]>, > Alexei Fedotov writes: >> >> Hello, >> >> > If the vote is successful, binary builds from that level will be >> > made available on the download page, as usual. >> >> I'm sorry. Do I understand correctly that no binary builds are >> available now? > > No, not yet. This time we are trying to do things the Apache way > so we'll make them if/when we decide we are happy with the (source) > release. > > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html says: > > The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All > releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make > changes to the software being released. In some cases, binary/bytecode > packages are also produced as a convenience to users that might > not have the appropriate tools to build a compiled version of the > source. In all such cases, the binary/bytecode package must have > the same version number as the source release and may only add > binary/bytecode files that are the result of compiling that version of > the source code release. > > It would be permissible to produce binary artefacts at the same time > as the source (as long as they are produced from the source artefacts > not from the svn tree used to create them). I was tempted but, IMNSHO, > doing so would inevitably lead to people assessing the wrong artefacts > and neglecting the all-important source artefacts. > > I do some sanity checking before asking for a vote but I intend to make > the full use of the 3 days of voting to do more testing. If/when I vote > +1 it will be based on my downloading both the tar.gz and zip, checking > the signature/hash files, building them for x86 and x86_64, running > our tests, running some simple scenarios with applications (eclipse > 3.4, the latest eclipse RC, groovy, tomcat, etc), etc. > > Everyone has their own reasons for voting[0]. This is fine; voting is > a matter of individual "conscience". However, personally, I'd rather > people voted based on their own experience - with the artefacts they are > voting on - rather than trusting others (although there will always be > some element of trust[1]). > > Regards, > Mark. > > [0] I notice the number of votes significantly outnumbers the number > of downloads (and there are even fewer downloads of the > signature/hash files). > > [1] I trust that someone else will test on Windows. > >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Tim Ellison<[email protected]> wrote: >> > Looks good. >> > >> > +1 from me. >> > >> > Mark Hindess wrote: >> >> I've fixed the "java -version" issue and created two signed source >> >> archives for this revision and made them available at: >> >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~hindessm/m10/ >> >> >> >> Please vote for declaring these source archives as milestone 10, and >> >> opening up the code for general development once again. >> >> >> >> This vote will be open for at least 3 days, or until all binding votes >> >> have been cast (if earlier). >> >> >> >> If the vote is successful, binary builds from that level will be made >> >> available on the download page, as usual. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Mark. > > > -- With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями, Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов, http://www.telecom-express.ru/ http://harmony.apache.org/ http://code.google.com/p/openmeetings/
