[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
Because the more I thought about it, the more I realized that in the
grand scheme of things, these are minor. IMHO, it's the container that
we're voting on, and this version of the container is definitely more
solid than the previous GA release.
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.
My vote was based on the fact that I don't consider this to be all that
important in the grand scheme of things. Pluto's major users are portals
that are embedding us. The developers using us can choose to either use
the previous release or live without the admin portlet (which isn't that
robust in the first place).
The reality is, if we're able to keep doing frequent releases, 1.1.2
will be out in a few weeks anyways. If others would prefer, I'll gladly
drop this vote and cut it now.
>
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.
Not necessarily :) . . .it depends on if you need the admin portlet or
not and whether or not there are 2 other GA votes. It's up to the
community.
I don't see the harm in re-rolling the distribution. We did it a couple
of times for 1.1.0.
That's a PMC decision and right now it looks like the PMC prefers to not
recut releases. I'm sure that fairly soon the PMC will come out with a
defined release process, for now, I'm just trying to follow the spirit
of the law that doesn't exist yet.
Carsten, can you help explain the reasoning behind this? While I agree
with it, I'm not sure I totally understand the reasons why it makes
sense :). On the surface it sounds scary to people, but in practice,
after accepting it, I've liked it. Can you help explain why?
If there's anyone else on the PMC that has any input, I'd be interested
in your thoughts on this case as well.
David
/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
