David, Why did you change your mind from calling it a beta build when I first reported the problem with the Page Admin Portlet to marking it a GA build now? None of the code has changed?
I agree that a distribution does not have to be perfect to be released, but I think this one has a glaring imperfection: a portal driver with a complely broken Admin Page. I wanted to use this version of the portal driver, because I needed support for Java 1.4 (as you know, version 1.1.0 does not support Java 1.4). But I guess I (and a number of others, I'm sure) am out of luck. I don't see the harm in re-rolling the distribution. We did it a couple of times for 1.1.0. /Craig "David H. DeWolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/06/2007 10:01:30 AM: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Didn't you fix this one? If so, why is this not included in the 1.1.1 > > distribution? > > > > Yes, in fact both bugs are fixed in svn, however, 1.1.1 was cut PRIOR to > the fix and we will not recut it. > > The Portals PMC is currently trying to flush out our release processes > so that they are common across the projects. One of the criteria that > seems like it will be included is that test builds are numbered and > voted on to be a release. Once a test build is cut, it will not be > recut. If a new build is required, the version number will incremented > and a new vote started. > > In this case, I do not think that the current issues are significant > enough to terminate the vote on 1.1.1. I propose moving forward with > 1.1.1 and releasing 1.1.2 with in a couple of weeks (currently there are > 5 jira tickets addressed in it, and there are a couple more I htink that > can be knocked off in the time). > > One of the great advantages of release early, release often is that we > don't have to have PERFECT builds. We want them to meet quality > standards, but we also want to push them out. The reality is that 1.1.1 > has several improvements over 1.1.0 and only this one regression. > > David
