On 1/9/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/9/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip/>
>
> Pending 24 hours for reporting any errors in counting etc., I plan to
> complete the release tasks:
>
> * Copy the m2 artifacts and the metadata files over to the m2-rsync repo
> * Copy the release artifacts (*.zip), readme to the /www/wao/dist space
<snap/>
Should have stressed on the above bullet. v103 posted release
artifacts in the people.apache.org/dist space [1], whereas doing the
above for v104 will actually cause the release to be mirrored.
So, true or false: v104 should be mirrored.
Since this is an official Apache release authorised by the Shale PMC
then it can (and should IMO) be distributed in the official (mirrored)
repositories.
The thing I think is confusing is that you didn't vote on a "quality"
- as I understand you're thinking of having different quality grades
for different components because of tiles(?) Anyway whatever the
process you're using for quality IMO it would be better to determine
this before announcing the release - as I'm sure people will either
assume its GA quality or wonder what its designation is (alpha, beta,
GA).
Niall
-Rahul
[1] http://people.apache.org/dist/shale/v1.0.3/
> * Roll version numbers in 1_0_X branch
> * Sync up 1_0_X branch and trunk (except the 1.1 new features, ofcourse)
>
> Thanks for your time, all.
>
> -Rahul
