On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:13:10 -0500, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 9:35 AM -0700 10/18/04, Martin Cooper wrote: > >On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:07:41 -0500, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >Here's my +1 for adopting the HTTP server release process, with > >> >whatever modifications we deem necessary. > >> > >> I agree with this. I believe we should consider anything a release > >> which has gone through the release checklist and had a version number > >> assigned and a corresponding tag applied to SVN. This is a purely > >> mechanical definition. Anything else might involve confusion if a > >> version number were reused. > > > >I disagree with the idea of calling anything a Release without voting > >on it. What led to our change in process was a desire to move to the > >Tomcat way of doing things. Mention of the HTTPD way of doing things > >came along later. The Tomcat way has us building Test Builds which we > >later vote on to decide if it's a Release of any sort. That is the > >process that I followed for 1.2.4, and that is the process that I want > >to see us adopt. It was actually my understanding that we had already > >done so, which is why I've been following it. If the HTTPD process is > >different from that, then I am -1 on adopting that process. > > In my ignorance, I didn't even realize that there was that much > difference between Tomcat's process and HTTPD's process. > > I would formalize my vote as +0 - I don't feel very strongly about > it, and Martin apparently does. I had thought we were going to do it > the way I described, but I don't really think much is lost by adding > in a "test build" period. I do think there would be potential > confusion if a test build was not voted as a release, but the amount > of that potential confusion is probably pretty low if we're just > talking about activity on the dev list.
The 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 test builds didn't make it to releases. That is as it should be - we want releases to be quality builds. What I feel very strongly about is that nothing should be called a Release until we vote on it, especially since I believe this is an ASF requirement. We have said that anyone can build a Test Build (e.g. 1.2.x) at any time, and that's fine. But I don't want to see such a build viewed as a Release by the community if the developers / PMC haven't sanctioned it by a vote. -- Martin Cooper > > > Joe > > -- > Joe Germuska > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blog.germuska.com > "In fact, when I die, if I don't hear 'A Love Supreme,' I'll turn > back; I'll know I'm in the wrong place." > - Carlos Santana > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
