It has been almost 96 hours since the vote started, and many of the
potential voters are either ending their work day right now (non-US) or
are headed towards a four-day weekend (US), so I don't expect any
additional votes.
The result of the vote was:
Sal Campana: +1
Dan Jemiolo: abstain
Sanjiva Weerawarana: -1
Since there were only two votes, we cannot have a "release" as is
traditionally thought of in the ASF sense. However, Sanjiva and Sam's
discussion resulted in the idea that we could have a milestone that was
available in our own repository, but was not dubbed a "release" and was
not in ASF's distribution repository. Everyone on the team seems okay with
that, so I'm going to move forward with that idea.
In the next hour or so, I will update the web site and SVN to include a
pointer to the snapshot files (including JARs and supplements). I will
refer to it solely as a milestone, but I can always update the site if
another word is more appropriate. Hopefully the mirrors will update in
time for today's status call so everyone can review it.
Dan
----- Forwarded by Daniel Jemiolo/Durham/IBM on 06/30/2006 08:08 AM -----
Daniel Jemiolo/Durham/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/29/2006 02:08:17 PM:
> Hi,
>
> I'm sorry if the word "release" threw people off - I've seen various
> Apache projects talk about setting "milestones" or "milestone releases"
or
> some variation of that and tried to emulate it as closely as possible.
The
> "-M1" format in particular was copied from some recent Apache
> announcements.
>
> I guess what is causing concern for our group is that the community -
> through it's public conference calls[1] and diligently-recorded minutes
-
> had decided to make the milestone at this time, and that everyone could
> depend on this for their related projects. On these calls, there were
only
> 1-2 IBMers (often just me), meaning the other 75-85% of attendees were
not
> from IBM. Our leader, Sal, gave us a lot of support on this and was
> instrumental in making sure all of the administrative process was done
in
> addition to the technical work. I feel like we've tried very hard to
grow
> the community, in a very open way, and that given our small numbers (and
> the fact that I am a young programmer who has no clout with anyone), the
> implication that IBM is ramrodding this to release is unfair.
>
> I suppose the current Muse participants (especially me) are somewhat at
> fault for failing to realize that we did not control our own destiny as
> much as we thought. However, I believe our intentions are good, they are
> consistent with other Apache projects/versions that are just building
> steam, and they allow us to draw a line in the sand for other projects
to
> reference and debate.
>
> We can create a Maven repository with the build, but a) there are
non-jar
> files we want to distribute, and b) we need some way to differentiate it
> from more current snapshots (usually done by removing the -SNAPSHOT
> suffix). To me this seems like what we proposed before (two zip files in
a
> repository), but it wouldn't be stored at www.apache.org/dist/muse/. Is
> that the difference? Can we put up the files we have now if they're
stored
> in our own repository?
>
> I'm not trying to be difficult, but as I said, our fledgling team has
been
> working on the assumption of this release for a while, and I do not
> understand the ultimate difference between the two proposals. I'm trying
> hard to meet the group's expectations, uphold ASF principles, and
> distinguish this snapshot from others in a way that is easy to identify
> for non-Apache people.
>
> Dan
>
> [1] see "News" on http://ws.apache.org/muse/ or
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=muse-dev&m=114927142701490&w=2
>
>
>
>
> Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/29/2006 01:13:44 PM:
>
> > Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 11:59 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > >> At the other extreme, a PMC can vote to have a formal release,
which
> > >> often is supported for multiple years.
> > >>
> > >> What is called for here? The technical part is easy. It is a
> snapshot,
> > >> it is a branch. The hard part is what to call it.
> > >
> > > The subject has "release" in it Sam - which has specific meaning in
> the
> > > ASF as you know very well. That's what the mail was sent for- to
> permit
> > > a formal release. As such, I don't feel its right for this project
to
> do
> > > a release at this stage.
> > >
> > > We don't culturally do "milestone releases" in the ASF (this is for
> the
> > > Muse folks not for Sam obviously). The solution for that is to use a
> > > specific revision of the SVN repo and build off that .. or just use
> > > Maven snapshots.
> >
> > As to the ASF not doing milestone releases, I beg to differ:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?q=apache+milestone+release
> >
> > > OF COURSE I agree its a Good Thing (TM) for other projects to use
this
> > > code. However, it a CRITICAL THING for any ASF release to meet the
> usual
> > > ASF release criteria. Do you seriously feel Sam that a project that
> > > basically imported itself from IBM a few weeks ago is ready for a
> > > release? I don't accept it is.
> >
> > Given (a) that a Maven snapshot would be politically acceptable, but
(b)
>
> > Eclipse is not currently based on Maven, how would you suggest that
Dan
> > proceeds?
> >
> > > Sanjiva.
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
