I do believe we should be voting on Beta and up though. Beta should (hopefully) be bug-free -- a build we anticipate to be the "major release". Perhaps my thinking is flawed :-)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Adopt HTTP Release Guidelines (was Re: [Announce] Release of Struts 1.2.5 (beta))
+1 on the "test build then vote to rank" approach that Tomcat uses.
As an additional clarification, I presume that we will want the same release process for any subproject releases? This is becoming timely as the opportunity for a 1.0.1 release of struts-faces draws nigh. It might be worth mentioning this in the release guidelines as well, including the explicit requirement that any release vote involve the entire committer community (with PMC votes binding, as usual) -- not just the developers who might happen to be working on that subproject. After all, the subprojects will still say "Struts" on them, and we're all going to care about that reputation.
Craig
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:06:25 -0500, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 10:55 AM -0700 10/18/04, Martin Cooper wrote: >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.
I think ultimately we agree even more than I realized, since, looking back at how you describe these events, I realize that my main concern - version number confusion - is not at issue.
I simply think of anything with a version number as a release. I'm happy to change that and to describe the first output of the "release process" as a "test build" instead of an "alpha release".
In fact, I'd be +1 to that, given that we have two cases in recent memory where the artifact was not really even usable as an alpha release.
Joe
--- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0442-3, 10/15/2004 Tested on: 10/18/2004 6:39:44 PM avast! - copyright (c) 2000-2004 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
