+1 on a release at java.net. We need to make sure that people are happy with how we do that release, but otherwise I think it's the best way to go. Same for 1.3 before that.
I propose that the release plan is put in an email and sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]; and that we include them on the mail when an RC is made. I imagine they'll be concerned that: * Apache references are not there * Apache licence bits are there * incubating reference is there/not there (unsure if we'll want this). Hen On 11/7/05, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 7, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote: > > that's fine with me, but do we really have Roller 2.1 code ready to be > > committed? i have stuff in my workspace that is meant for 2.1, but > > it's not really ready to be committed yet. Are we that far away from > > a 2.0 release that we need the branch? Couldn't these things be > > finalized by the end of the week? AFAIK the only things outstanding > > are db script related. > > I was assuming finalization of Roller 2.0 was further off than that, > but you are correct we're basically done and should get Roller 2.0 out > of the way. So here goes... > > The code in the Roller trunk, aka Roller 2.0, is stable and has been > running in production > at multiple sites for over a week now. There are no issues open against > this release, > so I propose that we release this code at Java.Net now as: > > "Roller 2.0 (Incubating)" > > The release will be made up of three files. > > roller-2.0-incubating.tar.gz - the complete Roller webapp > roller-2.0-incubating-src.tar.gz - Roller source code > roller-2.0-incubating-tools.tar.gz - the jars required to build > from source > > According to the incubator docs: > <http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/ > Incubation_Policy.html#Releases%0D> > We need the endorsement of a mentor and the approval of the Incubator > PMC. > So mentors, please advise. > > - Dave > > > > > > > -- Allen > > > > > > On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 06:27, Dave Johnson wrote: > >> Some of us are about to start post-2.0 work, and, in fact, I've > >> already > >> got some changes to support the Atom protocol that I don't want to > >> commit to 2.0. > >> > >> So, it's not part of the Roller release plan, but I think we need a > >> roller_2.0 branch > >> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=RollerReleasePlan > >> > >> The purpose of the branch would be to make the final preparations for > >> Roller 2.0 release. Once 2.0 is released, we'd merge roller_2.0 to > >> trunk and we'd copy roller_2.0 to tags. > >> > >> Any comments/concerns? > >> > >> - Dave > >> > > > >
