On 30 Sep 07, at 12:41 AM 30 Sep 07, Stephane Nicoll wrote:
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.
http://www.nabble.com/Doing-alpha-releases-faster-
tf4416820s177.html#a12597781
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]
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]
