On 9/29/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why, and says who? These things are not cast in stone and we have the > ability to adapt the process to make it more productive. > > [...] > > I don't really care. Staging a release is not a big deal, just > invariably pointless for an alpha because 99% of the time no one will > actually do anything with the staged copy. It's more important that > the stuff gets cranked out for feedback so it can be fixed. I mean > even with releases hardly anyone looks. It's nice idea in theory but > if it serves no practical purpose what is the point. I was hopeful > that the staged copy would illicit feedback but doesn't seem to have. > Not much anyway.
I agree with you but, even if those things are not cast in stone, it's commonly used. If we were to adapt for alphas, betas or anything else, I think it makes more sense to discuss it a bit instead of doing it on your side without telling anyone. That's not the first time you're doing this and it's personally confusing to me. Cheers, Stéphane > > I only say this because I see very little, if any feed back on > release plugins, and even released versions of Maven. The best > feedback I get is from plugins that I just crank out from Mojo and I > get two or three people providing feedback and that really helps. I > mean even staging it sometimes doesn't help if you look at the last > release of Archetype. Releases must be scrutinized (even though they > aren't) but let the alphas sail out fast and furious for feedback. We > don't intermediary releases out fast enough because it still must be > a pain in the ass for people which means only the determined will > build from source which means we miss out on the vast majority of > potential feedback. People should lock down there plugin versions > (the enforcer plugin on the next release will help with that, and > they should turn off any automagic update policy) so that we can > release this stuff often and people can try it as they like. > > We either adapt or people will continue annoy our users. People don't > release often because something is wrong in our process. It is still > deemed cumbersome because we still have the same pool of people doing > releases and not many new people. Three +1 votes should really mean > trying the software and actually reviewing code but we know that no > one does that so what is difference really between pointing at a > revision or trunk or putting some binaries somewhere? > > > -- > > Wendy > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > jason at sonatype dot com > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Large Systems Suck: This rule is 100% transitive. If you build one, you suck" -- S.Yegge --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
