On 6/2/08, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A set of artifacts for Shale 1.0.5 is now ready. Please review the > artifacts mentioned below and vote accordingly. Since this is my first > time as release manager I wouldn't be surprised if something is > missing or if I've included things that shouldn't be included, so I'd > appreciate as thorough a review as you have time for. In particular I > see a lot of Maven artifacts and zip files that were not included in > previous releases so I wonder if they are meant to be release (the > *test* artifacts for example). > <snip/>
Thanks for putting the bits together Greg! Two high-level comments: 1) The *test* artifacts aren't meant to be distributed via releases, or used for anything beyond local testing, IIRC. (the usecases apps are meant to demo features). I would prefer we leave them out, to avoid many differences in this point release. You should be able to just blow those *test* directories / artifacts away in the m2 staging repo / dist area. 2) In the ballot below, can you please revise the first couple of lines to read ... [ ] +1 for beta release (Binding, PMC members only) [ ] +1 for beta release (community members who have reviewed the bits) ... or some such. The important bit is to note the initial quality as beta. This is one of the things I did not do when posting the CfV for v1.0.4 (and we had to clarify that in a separate thread later). This way the release announcement can state the initial quality to be beta (and that it will potentially be revised later). Also, I think we can even do away with the PMC / otherwise distinction in the ballot. I'll leave that to you. These changes are fairly superficial, so shouldn't require any rebuilding (and this vote thread can continue, IMO). -Rahul > > (5) Vote > > Please review these artifacts, signatures and checksums, and vote > whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.5. > > --8<-------------------------------------------- > [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only > [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released > ------------------------------------------------ > > A quality vote (per module, where necessary) will be held later on if > this passes. > > Thank you!! > > Greg >
