By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ": http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
I am quoting here a relevant part: ================================= What Is A Release? Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label the package is a secondary issue, described below. During the process of developing software and preparing a release, various packages are made available to the developer community for testing purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test packages, then remove them. Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often. Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development. ================================= Jacopo On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er... > compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war please)... > > For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain that > recommnending to use trunk to users has been the > inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for the > project to get more contributions and I must say it's also > easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a big > deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for > instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link there is now > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started > (BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually > all the documentation needs update and pruning). > > Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way: > http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh > > And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time now (I > mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o). > Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04 release. I > believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes > (trunk or releases) and we need both! > > Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation > > Jacques > > > From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> >> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is >> not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us >> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit >> to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past >> just because we let him do this. >> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in >> the download page, please provide a valid motivation >> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of >> it I will be happy to accept and implement >> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just >> to please Hans. >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> >>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise. >>> >>> Right >>> >>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious) >>> >>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o). >>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential >>> OFBiz users >>> >>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there? >>> >>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way >>> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check >>> out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>> >>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art >>> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because >>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge... >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> >>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link? >>>>> >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> From: "Hans Bakker" <mailingl...@antwebsystems.com> >>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it? >>>>>> >>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school? >>>>>> >>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hans >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>> Thank you Hans, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there >>>>>>> links to download code that has not been officially >>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to >>>>>>> fix the page in the past. >>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more >>>>>>> official"). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> congratulations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least >>>>>>>> mentioned. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Hans >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section >>>>>>>>> containing the tentative release schedule for each release: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and >>>>>>>>> achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the >>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance >>>>>>>>> the migration of their custom instance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official >>>>>>>>>>>> release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to >>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and >>>>>>>>>>>> especially demos updates) >>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other >>>>>>>>>>>> areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the >>>>>>>>>>> main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is >>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but >>>>>>>>>>> we do not issue a release the users will not get real >>>>>>>>>>> benefit. >>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our >>>>>>>>>> way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change >>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity >>>>>>>>>> would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>> >> >>
