Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Hi Hiram, Thanks for the clarification. I understand now how you have decided to organize your releases. Craig On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:38 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote: I think you misunderstood me. I agree that release name on the release artifact should not change. But there should be some simple mechanism so that folks can tell which internal review version you are talking about. We just choose to do that by uploading each rebuild of the same artifact to a new directory. On 11/21/06, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, I just don't like that changes to the bits based on an internal review should change the name of the release. Craig On Nov 21, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ 4.1.0 and we drop it in a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory called RC2 etc. So I would guess you guys just need to put out at 0.9.6-incubating RC2 On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new releases. Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next iteration of the 0.9.6 release? I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet; nobody should be confused by a vote for it. Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and 0.9.6.1 implies that one does. However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list? -Patrick _ __ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
On 11/26/06, Patrick Linskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So out of curiosity, do you do this just for the incubator release vote, or do you go through the same process for the votes on your PMC list as well? If the same, do you anticipate going through the same process for votes after incubation? We now use the same process for both. We've tried a few permutations over the years but for maven 2 releases this seems to work the best so far. -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
So out of curiosity, do you do this just for the incubator release vote, or do you go through the same process for the votes on your PMC list as well? If the same, do you anticipate going through the same process for votes after incubation? -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiram Chirino Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:41 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're doing something pretty much the same; just not calling it RC-anything. What do you do when it comes time to vote? Clearly, you can't be voting on the RC build, as that's not the final build (the final build doesn't include RC in the name, does it?), and it's my understanding that only final bits are voted on. We just upload the final binaries (without the RC in the name) to a directory with an RC-x name in it. Once a given RC-x is finalized we copy it's contents to their final resting place. -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. __ _ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiram Chirino Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 2:52 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ 4.1.0 and we drop it in a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory called RC2 etc. So I would guess you guys just need to put out at 0.9.6-incubating RC2 On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new releases. Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next iteration of the 0.9.6 release? I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet; nobody should be confused by a vote for it. Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and 0.9.6.1 implies that one does. However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list? -Patrick __ _ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
I think you misunderstood me. I agree that release name on the release artifact should not change. But there should be some simple mechanism so that folks can tell which internal review version you are talking about. We just choose to do that by uploading each rebuild of the same artifact to a new directory. On 11/21/06, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, I just don't like that changes to the bits based on an internal review should change the name of the release. Craig On Nov 21, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ 4.1.0 and we drop it in a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory called RC2 etc. So I would guess you guys just need to put out at 0.9.6-incubating RC2 On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new releases. Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next iteration of the 0.9.6 release? I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet; nobody should be confused by a vote for it. Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and 0.9.6.1 implies that one does. However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list? -Patrick _ __ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're doing something pretty much the same; just not calling it RC-anything. What do you do when it comes time to vote? Clearly, you can't be voting on the RC build, as that's not the final build (the final build doesn't include RC in the name, does it?), and it's my understanding that only final bits are voted on. We just upload the final binaries (without the RC in the name) to a directory with an RC-x name in it. Once a given RC-x is finalized we copy it's contents to their final resting place. -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiram Chirino Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 2:52 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ 4.1.0 and we drop it in a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory called RC2 etc. So I would guess you guys just need to put out at 0.9.6-incubating RC2 On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new releases. Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next iteration of the 0.9.6 release? I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet; nobody should be confused by a vote for it. Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and 0.9.6.1 implies that one does. However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list? -Patrick __ _ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - 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] -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
James Strachan wrote: On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you do when it comes time to vote? Clearly, you can't be voting on the RC build, as that's not the final build (the final build doesn't include RC in the name, does it?), and it's my understanding that only final bits are voted on. Have a look at the recent number of RC's we've had to do to get our releases in shape... http://people.apache.org/~chirino/ basically we create a maven repo for each RC but the artifacts inside them are all 'the final build' with no RC in their name - then if the vote goes well, the RC is just moved to the right place. That way we don't have to do another build after the vote - but folks can still compare each RC etc. ($0.002 from me): I positively don't like this way. If I download this build, and unpack it and use it, I have _no idea_ at a later stager whether it was the proper release or a RC. There might even be several rounds of RCs, in which case the problem is even worse - and the final flaw for me using and potentially distributing the wrong version might be hefty. I think that a proper RC should be voted on, in which case all jars, MANIFESTs, tarballs, and toplevel unpack dirs should have a _clear_ RC in their name, and then if the vote goes through, a _direct rebuild_ of the release with the content of the preferably _sole file_ denoting the release's name changed from blah-RC to blah should be done and posted on the official places. IMHO, of course. Endre. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you do when it comes time to vote? Clearly, you can't be voting on the RC build, as that's not the final build (the final build doesn't include RC in the name, does it?), and it's my understanding that only final bits are voted on. Have a look at the recent number of RC's we've had to do to get our releases in shape... http://people.apache.org/~chirino/ basically we create a maven repo for each RC but the artifacts inside them are all 'the final build' with no RC in their name - then if the vote goes well, the RC is just moved to the right place. That way we don't have to do another build after the vote - but folks can still compare each RC etc. -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
On 11/22/06, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, I just don't like that changes to the bits based on an internal review should change the name of the release. (there are several reasons why some projects choose to do this but here's one of mine) very occasionally such jars escape into the wild and begin to live a life of their own. sometime very active lives. under these circumstances it's not uncommon for them to cause lots trouble later. unique names restrict the damage done. an academic point in this case, i agree. not trying to persuade anyone, just offering some background. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
On Nov 21, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote: However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Do what makes most sense for your developers and your users. It sounds like you know what that is. Is this going to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list? No way. As long as you explain the situation so people can do an informed vote you should be fine. The day the incubator starts dictating version numbers to podlings is when I run away screaming :-). LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Patrick, Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1 However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Figuring this out is something that the PPMC ought to deal with. You have had several suggestions made to you, and one of the things that *I'd* like to see is how you folks deal with it. FWIW, I, personally, do not really care what outcome you come to, so much as I care to see how you come to a conclusion. Think of me as the Philosophy Professor from school who doesn't care which side of the debate you argue, but does care about the argument, itself. :-) --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Craig L Russell wrote: Hi, I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new releases. Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next iteration of the 0.9.6 release? Upayavira On Nov 21, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote: William Good point, but since the trunk (from which 0.9.7-incubating-SNAPSHOT nighties are being built) has advanced with potentially destabilizing changes since the branch point 0.9.6-incubating, it might be even more confusing for anyone who is relying on 0.9.7-incubating-SNAPSHOT changes to see them suddenly gone in a subsequent 0.9.7-incubating release. We'd rather fix the issues with the licenses and other miscellaneous issues and get the release out the door without introducing the risk of new and changed code causing unnecessary problems and further delays. On Nov 21, 2006, at 5:44 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote: For the purposes of closure, I am officially withdrawing this vote for the openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release while we make the changes that Robert mentions. We expect that a new vote will be started for the 0.9.6-incubating release Remember version numbers are *cheap* - burn one. It resolves confusion over 'which 0.9.6 is the problem?' 0.9.7, .8, .9, .10 etc can always follow (and is a good sign the releases are being triple checked when versions end up begin skipped.) - 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] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Sorry, I just don't like that changes to the bits based on an internal review should change the name of the release. Craig On Nov 21, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ 4.1.0 and we drop it in a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory called RC2 etc. So I would guess you guys just need to put out at 0.9.6-incubating RC2 On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new releases. Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next iteration of the 0.9.6 release? I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet; nobody should be confused by a vote for it. Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and 0.9.6.1 implies that one does. However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list? -Patrick _ __ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
I don't think so. Let the podling come up with what they call 0.9.6, let it give clear information to what that means, and the incubator PMC votes from there. This is getting counterproductive. geir Patrick Linskey wrote: Hi, I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new releases. Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next iteration of the 0.9.6 release? I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet; nobody should be confused by a vote for it. Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and 0.9.6.1 implies that one does. However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list? -Patrick ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. - 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: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
We're doing something pretty much the same; just not calling it RC-anything. What do you do when it comes time to vote? Clearly, you can't be voting on the RC build, as that's not the final build (the final build doesn't include RC in the name, does it?), and it's my understanding that only final bits are voted on. -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiram Chirino Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 2:52 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ 4.1.0 and we drop it in a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory called RC2 etc. So I would guess you guys just need to put out at 0.9.6-incubating RC2 On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new releases. Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next iteration of the 0.9.6 release? I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet; nobody should be confused by a vote for it. Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and 0.9.6.1 implies that one does. However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list? -Patrick __ _ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - 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: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Hi Upayavira, On Nov 21, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Upayavira wrote: Patrick Linskey wrote: ...snipped... However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list? In the end, all you _NEED_ to do is what you are doing. Make a tgz, with a specific version. Make it available here. Start a vote. Done that. What I'm talking about is more at the level of convenience. You are right that 1.9.6 hasn't been released. But a vote has taken place for it. Starting another vote for the same release number could make it harder for us to differentiate between the two vote threads. You could simply do [VOTE] 2nd vote for 0.9.6. That would successfully differentiate the vote. Yeah, that's what Marc has done. The subject line for the current vote is: [VOTE][THIRD ATTEMPT] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release Should be clear enough that this is the THIRD, yes, THIRD ATTEMPT. Don't know why all the yelling but bygones. ;-) Craig That's all I'm _asking_ for (not demanding). HTH. Regards, Upayavira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote: For the purposes of closure, I am officially withdrawing this vote for the openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release while we make the changes that Robert mentions. We expect that a new vote will be started for the 0.9.6-incubating release Remember version numbers are *cheap* - burn one. It resolves confusion over 'which 0.9.6 is the problem?' 0.9.7, .8, .9, .10 etc can always follow (and is a good sign the releases are being triple checked when versions end up begin skipped.) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
William Good point, but since the trunk (from which 0.9.7-incubating- SNAPSHOT nighties are being built) has advanced with potentially destabilizing changes since the branch point 0.9.6-incubating, it might be even more confusing for anyone who is relying on 0.9.7- incubating-SNAPSHOT changes to see them suddenly gone in a subsequent 0.9.7-incubating release. We'd rather fix the issues with the licenses and other miscellaneous issues and get the release out the door without introducing the risk of new and changed code causing unnecessary problems and further delays. On Nov 21, 2006, at 5:44 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote: For the purposes of closure, I am officially withdrawing this vote for the openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release while we make the changes that Robert mentions. We expect that a new vote will be started for the 0.9.6-incubating release Remember version numbers are *cheap* - burn one. It resolves confusion over 'which 0.9.6 is the problem?' 0.9.7, .8, .9, .10 etc can always follow (and is a good sign the releases are being triple checked when versions end up begin skipped.) - 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]
