Re: [RESULTS] [VOTE] Release Archiva 1.0-beta-3 (Postpone the release)

[Brett Porter]

Any reason not to move forward now? (time permitting, of course :)  
Things seem to be ok at the moment... I'm using the current trunk and  
did a whole lot of building without a local repo with a mix of new  
and existing artifacts yesterday without issues (other than one or  
two non-blocking ones I fixed and/or filed already :).


Cheers,
Brett

On 30/10/2007, at 4:11 PM, Maria Odea Ching wrote:

I can do another release at the end of this week :) Everybody okay  
with that?


-Deng

Brett Porter wrote:

I've merged 1.0-beta-4 back into 1.0-beta-3 in JIRA too.

When would you like to cut the release again Deng?

The only pre-condition I see is that we do need another plexus- 
webdav release first now - are all the webdav related JIRAs closed  
now Joakim?


Cheers,
Brett

On 26/10/2007, at 4:41 PM, Maria Odea Ching wrote:


These are the results of the vote:

+3 Binding votes (Fabrice, Brett and Myself)
-1 Binding vote (Arnaud)
+2 Non-binding votes (James, Olivier)

With all the regressions that were discovered in 1.0-beta-3, it  
seems that it would be better to postpone the release. I will  
remove the tag for 1.0-beta-3 in the source repo and revert the  
version in trunk to 1.0-beta-3-SNAPSHOT.


Thanks,
Deng

Maria Odea Ching wrote:

Hi All,

Archiva 1.0-beta-3 is now ready for release.

The highlights of this release are:
- major fixes in path resolution of artifacts (for proxying and  
consumers)

- fixes in updating of metadata files
- fixes in proxy connectors configuration
- tomcat deployment issues
- additional fixes in proxying
- form validations in webapp

The release notes for Archiva 1.0-beta-3 is available here:

http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa? 
version=13660styleName=TextprojectId=10980Create=Create  
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa? 
version=13660styleName=TextprojectId=10980Create=Create



While the binaries including the sources, checksums and  
signatures can be found in:


http://people.apache.org/builds/maven/archiva/1.0-beta-3/

Everyone is encouraged to vote and give their feedback.

[ ] +1 Release it!
[ ] 0
[ ] -1 Don't release it, because...


The vote will be open for 72 hours. So, cast your votes now ;-)


Here's my +1


Thanks,
Deng


--
Brett Porter - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog: http://www.devzuz.org/blogs/bporter/





--
Brett Porter - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog: http://www.devzuz.org/blogs/bporter/

Re: [RESULTS] [VOTE] Release Archiva 1.0-beta-3 (Postpone the release)

[Joakim Erdfelt]

I say do it now, and start the vote now.
I've got a security related issue I'm working on now.
But I'd like to vet that for the 1.0-beta-4 release, not this 1.0-beta-3 
release.


- Joakim


Brett Porter wrote:
Any reason not to move forward now? (time permitting, of course :) 
Things seem to be ok at the moment... I'm using the current trunk and 
did a whole lot of building without a local repo with a mix of new and 
existing artifacts yesterday without issues (other than one or two 
non-blocking ones I fixed and/or filed already :).


Cheers,
Brett

On 30/10/2007, at 4:11 PM, Maria Odea Ching wrote:

I can do another release at the end of this week :) Everybody okay 
with that?


-Deng



--
- Joakim Erdfelt
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Open Source Software (OSS) Developer

Re: [RESULTS] [VOTE] Release Archiva 1.0-beta-3 (Postpone the release)

[Wendy Smoak]

On 10/25/07, Maria Odea Ching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 These are the results of the vote:

 +3 Binding votes (Fabrice, Brett and Myself)
 -1 Binding vote (Arnaud)
 +2 Non-binding votes (James, Olivier)

 With all the regressions that were discovered in 1.0-beta-3, it seems
 that it would be better to postpone the release. I will remove the tag
 for 1.0-beta-3 in the source repo and revert the version in trunk to
 1.0-beta-3-SNAPSHOT.

I think it would be better to just abandon the beta-3 release and go
forward with 1.0-beta-4.

Version numbers shouldn't be reused.  I don't mind deleting and
re-tagging during the release process if something goes wrong, but not
after it's been made available for download.

-- 
Wendy