Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > Small misunderstanding to clear up here; Mea culpa - glad this was clarified earlier, gotta catch up on archives from most-recent first I see :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Mark Thomas wrote: > > Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we > have 3 +1's from the PMC we can release. Small misunderstanding to clear up here; -1 is a legitimate vote There must be 3 more +1's than -1's (and at least 3 +1's as you say) A -1 is NOT a veto for releasing a tarball, which is probably what you ment to say, or where your confusion came from. Yours, Bill - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
On Feb 3, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Ted Husted wrote: Or, 1. create tarball and unofficial binaries, put them on people.apache.org/~remm/tomcat-6 2. call for alpha/beta/stable vote on build 3. wait 72 hours 4. if 3 +1's and more +1s than -1s, publish previously created tarball and binaries to www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6, else wait longer 5. announce release after sync of the website Of course, if a PMC member needed more time at 3, the RM could just leave the vote open longer. +1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Mark Thomas wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: I am ok with changing the release process if something simpler is possible. I am interested in speeding up the process by cutting back on the number of votes. The process would be: 1. create tarball and unofficial binaries, put them on people.apache.org/~remm/tomcat-6 2. wait 4-5 days 3. call for alpha/beta/stable vote on build 4. 3 +1's later publish previously created tarball and binaries to www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6 5. announce release after sync of the website Following up on Yoav's point, allowing 72 hours at step 4 would lengthen the overall time but the time at step 2 could be reduced to compensate and keep the end to end time the same. Ok, I think I can propose a vote for this new release process. Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Or, 1. create tarball and unofficial binaries, put them on people.apache.org/~remm/tomcat-6 2. call for alpha/beta/stable vote on build 3. wait 72 hours 4. if 3 +1's and more +1s than -1s, publish previously created tarball and binaries to www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6, else wait longer 5. announce release after sync of the website Of course, if a PMC member needed more time at 3, the RM could just leave the vote open longer. -Ted. On 2/2/07, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am ok with changing the release process if something simpler is possible. I am interested in speeding up the process by cutting back on the number of votes. The process would be: 1. create tarball and unofficial binaries, put them on people.apache.org/~remm/tomcat-6 2. wait 4-5 days 3. call for alpha/beta/stable vote on build 4. 3 +1's later publish previously created tarball and binaries to www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6 5. announce release after sync of the website Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Remy Maucherat wrote: > I am ok with changing the release process if something simpler is > possible. I am interested in speeding up the process by cutting back on > the number of votes. > > The process would be: > 1. create tarball and unofficial binaries, put them on > people.apache.org/~remm/tomcat-6 > 2. wait 4-5 days > 3. call for alpha/beta/stable vote on build > 4. 3 +1's later publish previously created tarball and binaries to > www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6 > 5. announce release after sync of the website Following up on Yoav's point, allowing 72 hours at step 4 would lengthen the overall time but the time at step 2 could be reduced to compensate and keep the end to end time the same. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Yoav Shapira wrote: > Hi, > > On 2/2/07, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yoav Shapira wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On 2/2/07, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we >> > >> > Umm, why is a -1 not valid for a release? >> >> Standard Apache procedure as per >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > Yeah ;) I said -1 is not a veto. Sorry, I missed the distinction. > But it's still a valid vote to > register a strong objection to something in the release. It's a vote > I would hope causes further discussion and doesn't get ignored. Absolutely, but unless it is some problem with the build that the RM misses (possible, but unlikely) then I would expect the objection to come on commit rather than waiting for the release. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Hi, On 2/2/07, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yoav Shapira wrote: > Hi, > > On 2/2/07, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we > > Umm, why is a -1 not valid for a release? Standard Apache procedure as per http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Yeah ;) I said -1 is not a veto. But it's still a valid vote to register a strong objection to something in the release. It's a vote I would hope causes further discussion and doesn't get ignored. Yoav - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Yoav Shapira wrote: > Hi, > > On 2/2/07, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we > > Umm, why is a -1 not valid for a release? Standard Apache procedure as per http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Hi, On 2/2/07, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we Umm, why is a -1 not valid for a release? It can be overridden with a majority of and at least 3 +1 votes, but it's valid. It's also why the vote cannot be concluded in hours, but must run for a reasonable amount of time to give those with binding votes a chance to voice their mind. Usually we use ~72 hours as "reasonable." Otherwise you could theoretically be done with a vote in seconds, not hours: just the time it takes for 3 +1 emails. Yoav - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Mark Thomas wrote: The bit that has to be done (ie is mandated by Apache rules) is a vote by the PMC (three +1's required) to release a tarball. Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we have 3 +1's from the PMC we can release. This means the release process can be: 1. RM creates tarball, puts it on people.a.o or tomcat.a.o/dev/dist 2. RM creates binaries but keeps them private for now 3. RM calls for alpha/beta/stable vote on tarball 4. 3 +1's later RM publishes previously created tarball and binaries 5. RM waits for mirrors to sync and then announces release 6. Some period later we have a stability vote if the release was alpha or beta Given that the RM can vote at stage 4, only two other PMC +1's are needed to release. There are usually enough PMC members around that this vote could be concluded in hours. Based on the above, I don't see why we couldn't turn around a release in a single day. I am ok with changing the release process if something simpler is possible. I am interested in speeding up the process by cutting back on the number of votes. The process would be: 1. create tarball and unofficial binaries, put them on people.apache.org/~remm/tomcat-6 2. wait 4-5 days 3. call for alpha/beta/stable vote on build 4. 3 +1's later publish previously created tarball and binaries to www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6 5. announce release after sync of the website Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Remy Maucherat wrote: > Mladen Turk wrote: >> If you think its a PITA, don't do it. > > Apparently, it has to be done that way. I think it's a PITA because it > does take a lot of time (every vote needs a few days, etc). The bit that has to be done (ie is mandated by Apache rules) is a vote by the PMC (three +1's required) to release a tarball. Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we have 3 +1's from the PMC we can release. This means the release process can be: 1. RM creates tarball, puts it on people.a.o or tomcat.a.o/dev/dist 2. RM creates binaries but keeps them private for now 3. RM calls for alpha/beta/stable vote on tarball 4. 3 +1's later RM publishes previously created tarball and binaries 5. RM waits for mirrors to sync and then announces release 6. Some period later we have a stability vote if the release was alpha or beta Given that the RM can vote at stage 4, only two other PMC +1's are needed to release. There are usually enough PMC members around that this vote could be concluded in hours. Based on the above, I don't see why we couldn't turn around a release in a single day. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Mladen Turk wrote: If you think its a PITA, don't do it. Apparently, it has to be done that way. I think it's a PITA because it does take a lot of time (every vote needs a few days, etc). Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
> But IMHO, I am more interested in seeing a 6.0.x release than 5.5.21 :) > 5.5.21, could be a eternal beta like 5.0.30 for those sticking to that > version. Hi, May the user base have pity on you... Since 5.0.27 until 5.5.9 versions, tomcat had the classloader thread safety show stopper #33743. since 5.5.10, tomcat versions have another regression (#41017 : cannot clear a header through httpresponse.setHeader(name, null)), which is only fixed in 5.5.21. I may be a rare case, but given that combination above and the many other fixes in 5.5.21, trust that it is likely to be very welcomed and may cause many users to finally move to 5.5, and possibly go on with less insecurities about 6.0. I know I am stuck with 5.0.30 because my boss has had it with wasted time for doing tomcat workarounds. This is just my own example of overlapping bugs making it difficult to migrate. Thanks for your comprehension. Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 17:09 +0100, Remy Maucherat wrote: Mladen Turk wrote: Anyhow, a thing like Remy is doing for 6.0 would be nice to have. It offers a build before official tag Tagged sources are best here :) Tagged build does nothing for us, since we build from source. So if the builds are a pain, maybe just tagging sources is an option. But IMHO, I am more interested in seeing a 6.0.x release than 5.5.21 :) 5.5.21, could be a eternal beta like 5.0.30 for those sticking to that version. FYI, we have 6.0.7 beta, and 6.0.8 alpha packages available on Gentoo ~arch, unstable. Many are already switching to that, and I encourage it. I have run 6.0.x on my development server since 6.0.2. I will likely use on my production systems once there is an official release, non beta/alpha. Just tossing in my 2 cents. For those of us needing the most stable Tomcat possible today and with downstream consumers who can't stand "beta" labels, 5.5.21 would really be helpful. I'm quite interested in 6.0.x, but in the first "stable" release... -- Jess Holle
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 17:09 +0100, Remy Maucherat wrote: > Mladen Turk wrote: > > Anyhow, a thing like Remy is doing for 6.0 would be nice to have. > > It offers a build before official tag Tagged sources are best here :) Tagged build does nothing for us, since we build from source. So if the builds are a pain, maybe just tagging sources is an option. But IMHO, I am more interested in seeing a 6.0.x release than 5.5.21 :) 5.5.21, could be a eternal beta like 5.0.30 for those sticking to that version. FYI, we have 6.0.7 beta, and 6.0.8 alpha packages available on Gentoo ~arch, unstable. Many are already switching to that, and I encourage it. I have run 6.0.x on my development server since 6.0.2. I will likely use on my production systems once there is an official release, non beta/alpha. Just tossing in my 2 cents. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Remy Maucherat wrote: Mladen Turk wrote: Anyhow, a thing like Remy is doing for 6.0 would be nice to have. It offers a build before official tag Yes, and it is useless, and it makes the release procedure days longer. Thanks to this nonsense the release procedure now takes over two weeks. If you think its a PITA, don't do it. > Unfortunately, it seems I have to do it (at least that's what one > committer who apparently likes seeing people waste their time claimed). > ??? Can you tell us who that person is? Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Mladen Turk wrote: Anyhow, a thing like Remy is doing for 6.0 would be nice to have. It offers a build before official tag Yes, and it is useless, and it makes the release procedure days longer. Thanks to this nonsense the release procedure now takes over two weeks. Unfortunately, it seems I have to do it (at least that's what one committer who apparently likes seeing people waste their time claimed). Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: yes, early next week, i'll email when I have a target time for the tag Anyhow, a thing like Remy is doing for 6.0 would be nice to have. It offers a build before official tag Can we have that for 5.5.12 as well? The RM can put 'what will be released' in his private people.apache.org so we can test without going trough the entire SVN build procedure. Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
yes, early next week, i'll email when I have a target time for the tag Mladen Turk wrote: Yoav Shapira wrote: ... it's got a lot of good and important fixes in it. Filip, you up for cutting the release, say this weekend or early next week? ++1 -- Mladen - 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]
Re: Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
Yoav Shapira wrote: ... it's got a lot of good and important fixes in it. Filip, you up for cutting the release, say this weekend or early next week? ++1 -- Mladen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's get 5.5.21 out the door...
... it's got a lot of good and important fixes in it. Filip, you up for cutting the release, say this weekend or early next week? Yoav - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
