Re: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
On 07/06/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 19:13 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 06/06/07, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > sebb wrote: > > > s/branch/tag/g surely? > > > > Eh... CVS tag = SVN branch? Whatever, the things that are > > No, CVS tag = SVN tag No. SVN tag == SVN branch == shallow directory copy. Depends on your meaning of "shallow" - changing a file in the original does not change the file in the copy. There is just a convention in SVN to distinguish branches and tags. Both are the same thing, just in different places ( /branches and /tags). Yes, I think that's what I said. A CVS tag is something totally different. A CVS tag is a named set of different file revisions and basically a kludge if you do not have a repository-wide atomic revision number. Which subversion has. What I meant was that the /tags directory is conventionally used in SVN where one would use tags in CVS. Rather than using the revision number for building/representing a release, a tag is created, and then never updated. The tag tree thus contains a specific revision of the the database, and is a way of giving the revision a name. As far as I can see, SVN tags are a convenience - one could just document which revision constitutes the release, and use that to to do the build or retrieve the files. S/// - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 19:13 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 06/06/07, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > sebb wrote: > > > s/branch/tag/g surely? > > > > Eh... CVS tag = SVN branch? Whatever, the things that are > > No, CVS tag = SVN tag No. SVN tag == SVN branch == shallow directory copy. There is just a convention in SVN to distinguish branches and tags. Both are the same thing, just in different places ( /branches and /tags). A CVS tag is something totally different. A CVS tag is a named set of different file revisions and basically a kludge if you do not have a repository-wide atomic revision number. Which subversion has. Best regards Henning -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux, |gls 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc |m k INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
This is my personal model for this stuff. YMMV trunk ---+ main development --- | release branch branches/JCS_1_3 | + --- tag tags/JCS_1_3_RC1 | + --- tag tags/JCS_1_3_RC2 | + --- tag tags/JCS_1_3 | + --- tag tags/JCS_1_3_1 you release *from* a release branch *on* a release tag. Best regards Henning On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 18:41 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 06/06/07, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > >> If you changed the release files manually, you > > >> should commit those changes to SVN and give Sebastian some time to > > >> change his vote. > > > > > > We were voting on the artifacts on people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/, not on > > > SVN. This is at least what I understood the release-then-vote-policy > > > means. > > > > The point of a SVN branch is to have an archived version of the > > exact files that go into the release. If you have to change a > > release after creating the branch, you should update the branch > > and re-build the release from scratch. This is the best way to > > make sure that releases can be reproduced. > > s/branch/tag/g surely? > > S/// > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux, |gls 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc |m k INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
Hi Sebastian, > So a release can be developed in a branch or the trunk; before the > release is finally built the current files should be copied to a > subdirectory of tags. > > The tags subdirectory should not be updated once created. The branch was the correct term. You copy trunk into a branch in case you need to update something. Once the release is done you cut off the branch and stick a tag to it :-) cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
On 06/06/07, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: sebb wrote: > s/branch/tag/g surely? Eh... CVS tag = SVN branch? Whatever, the things that are No, CVS tag = SVN tag not trunk and from which you can get a named historic version (=revision?) of what used to be in trunk :-) In SVN, there is no distinction between tags and branches (or indeed trunk). They are all just directory names. But the convention is to use trunk for mainline code; branch/branch-name for any parallel developments (which may one day get merged into trunk); and tags/tagname to identify a snapshot which does not change. SVN does not prevent anyone from updating any of the directories, whereas as I recall, CVS tags were not as easy to update once created. So a release can be developed in a branch or the trunk; before the release is finally built the current files should be copied to a subdirectory of tags. The tags subdirectory should not be updated once created. It's called "level" in CMVC, and I just don't want to spend my time on learning a separate vocabulary for every source repository system out there :-( cheers, Roland - 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: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
sebb wrote: > s/branch/tag/g surely? Eh... CVS tag = SVN branch? Whatever, the things that are not trunk and from which you can get a named historic version (=revision?) of what used to be in trunk :-) It's called "level" in CMVC, and I just don't want to spend my time on learning a separate vocabulary for every source repository system out there :-( cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
On 06/06/07, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Thomas, >> If you changed the release files manually, you >> should commit those changes to SVN and give Sebastian some time to >> change his vote. > > We were voting on the artifacts on people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/, not on > SVN. This is at least what I understood the release-then-vote-policy > means. The point of a SVN branch is to have an archived version of the exact files that go into the release. If you have to change a release after creating the branch, you should update the branch and re-build the release from scratch. This is the best way to make sure that releases can be reproduced. s/branch/tag/g surely? S/// - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
Hi Thomas, >> If you changed the release files manually, you >> should commit those changes to SVN and give Sebastian some time to >> change his vote. > > We were voting on the artifacts on people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/, not on > SVN. This is at least what I understood the release-then-vote-policy > means. The point of a SVN branch is to have an archived version of the exact files that go into the release. If you have to change a release after creating the branch, you should update the branch and re-build the release from scratch. This is the best way to make sure that releases can be reproduced. cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corrected Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
Thomas Vandahl wrote: > Voting has closed. Here are the results: > > +1 votes: > Hanson Char <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Aaron Smuts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Scott Eade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Rony G. Flatscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 0 votes: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -1 votes: None. (* denotes binding votes) The vote has passed. We will make the artifacts available as soon as possible. Bye, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
On 6/3/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Agreed. though that page probably needs a bit of a reality check.. The problem is when someone does a -1 with reasoning, people tend to stop voting until that vote is switched to a +1 and if that vote is switched to a +1 and there are enough votes, people that stopped voting will keep silent. Hope I make sense :) Concretely, Thomas / Will -- In this particular scenario, I wouldn't release if I were the RM until I was able to work this out with sebb. YMMV. -Rahul Mvgr, Martin Will Glass-Husain wrote: > Martin, > > Actually, that's not true. Releases cannot be vetoed by a -1. See > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > If there's a majority approval and at least 3 +1 PMC votes, than it's up to > the release manager to decide whether or not to release. He can decide to > table the vote based on feedback, if so desired. (We had this issue in the > release of Velocity 1.5). > > WILL > > > > On 6/3/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Rony is a PMC member.. However the -1 of Sebb (which is binding and > blocking) is still there (unless >> I missed his +1).. >> Added Rony to the jakarta-pmc authorization file (thanx for spotting > this).. >> >> Mvgr, >> Martin >> >> Thomas Vandahl wrote: >> > Hi Roland, >> > >> > Roland Weber wrote: >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> >> >>> I could not find any information about whether Rony Flatscher is a >> >>> member of the PMC >> >> In the committers-only SVN module is a file board/committee-info.txt >> >> which lists the PMCs of all Apache projects. It's (supposed to be ;-) >> >> the authoritative source. Rony Flatscher is listed there as PMC >> member. >> > >> > I came across some commit message regarding asf-authorization which >> > contained a list of members of the jakarta-pmc group and he was not >> > listed there. So I was unsure. >> > >> >> I'm not sure myself how Sebastian's -1 will be weighed here. I would >> >> have expected that the NOTICE and LICENSE files get fixed and he >> >> changes his vote. As by his last mail on the topic, the content in >> >> SVN did not get fixed. If you changed the release files manually, you >> >> should commit those changes to SVN and give Sebastian some time to >> >> change his vote. >> > >> > We were voting on the artifacts on people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/, not on >> > SVN. This is at least what I understood the release-then-vote-policy >> > means. I have committed the latest changes and moved the tag, however. >> > >> > If Rony is a PMC member we have a result of 3 +1 votes, which should be >> > sufficient. However its up to the PMC to decide this. >> > >> > Bye, Thomas. >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
Agreed. though that page probably needs a bit of a reality check.. The problem is when someone does a -1 with reasoning, people tend to stop voting until that vote is switched to a +1 and if that vote is switched to a +1 and there are enough votes, people that stopped voting will keep silent. Hope I make sense :) Mvgr, Martin Will Glass-Husain wrote: > Martin, > > Actually, that's not true. Releases cannot be vetoed by a -1. See > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > If there's a majority approval and at least 3 +1 PMC votes, than it's up to > the release manager to decide whether or not to release. He can decide to > table the vote based on feedback, if so desired. (We had this issue in the > release of Velocity 1.5). > > WILL > > > > On 6/3/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Rony is a PMC member.. However the -1 of Sebb (which is binding and > blocking) is still there (unless >> I missed his +1).. >> Added Rony to the jakarta-pmc authorization file (thanx for spotting > this).. >> >> Mvgr, >> Martin >> >> Thomas Vandahl wrote: >> > Hi Roland, >> > >> > Roland Weber wrote: >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> >> >>> I could not find any information about whether Rony Flatscher is a >> >>> member of the PMC >> >> In the committers-only SVN module is a file board/committee-info.txt >> >> which lists the PMCs of all Apache projects. It's (supposed to be ;-) >> >> the authoritative source. Rony Flatscher is listed there as PMC >> member. >> > >> > I came across some commit message regarding asf-authorization which >> > contained a list of members of the jakarta-pmc group and he was not >> > listed there. So I was unsure. >> > >> >> I'm not sure myself how Sebastian's -1 will be weighed here. I would >> >> have expected that the NOTICE and LICENSE files get fixed and he >> >> changes his vote. As by his last mail on the topic, the content in >> >> SVN did not get fixed. If you changed the release files manually, you >> >> should commit those changes to SVN and give Sebastian some time to >> >> change his vote. >> > >> > We were voting on the artifacts on people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/, not on >> > SVN. This is at least what I understood the release-then-vote-policy >> > means. I have committed the latest changes and moved the tag, however. >> > >> > If Rony is a PMC member we have a result of 3 +1 votes, which should be >> > sufficient. However its up to the PMC to decide this. >> > >> > Bye, Thomas. >> > >> > - >> > 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] >> >> > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
Martin, Actually, that's not true. Releases cannot be vetoed by a -1. See http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html If there's a majority approval and at least 3 +1 PMC votes, than it's up to the release manager to decide whether or not to release. He can decide to table the vote based on feedback, if so desired. (We had this issue in the release of Velocity 1.5). WILL On 6/3/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rony is a PMC member.. However the -1 of Sebb (which is binding and blocking) is still there (unless I missed his +1).. Added Rony to the jakarta-pmc authorization file (thanx for spotting this).. Mvgr, Martin Thomas Vandahl wrote: > Hi Roland, > > Roland Weber wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >>> I could not find any information about whether Rony Flatscher is a >>> member of the PMC >> In the committers-only SVN module is a file board/committee-info.txt >> which lists the PMCs of all Apache projects. It's (supposed to be ;-) >> the authoritative source. Rony Flatscher is listed there as PMC member. > > I came across some commit message regarding asf-authorization which > contained a list of members of the jakarta-pmc group and he was not > listed there. So I was unsure. > >> I'm not sure myself how Sebastian's -1 will be weighed here. I would >> have expected that the NOTICE and LICENSE files get fixed and he >> changes his vote. As by his last mail on the topic, the content in >> SVN did not get fixed. If you changed the release files manually, you >> should commit those changes to SVN and give Sebastian some time to >> change his vote. > > We were voting on the artifacts on people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/, not on > SVN. This is at least what I understood the release-then-vote-policy > means. I have committed the latest changes and moved the tag, however. > > If Rony is a PMC member we have a result of 3 +1 votes, which should be > sufficient. However its up to the PMC to decide this. > > Bye, Thomas. > > - > 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] -- Forio Business Simulations Will Glass-Husain [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.forio.com
Re: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
Rony is a PMC member.. However the -1 of Sebb (which is binding and blocking) is still there (unless I missed his +1).. Added Rony to the jakarta-pmc authorization file (thanx for spotting this).. Mvgr, Martin Thomas Vandahl wrote: > Hi Roland, > > Roland Weber wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >>> I could not find any information about whether Rony Flatscher is a >>> member of the PMC >> In the committers-only SVN module is a file board/committee-info.txt >> which lists the PMCs of all Apache projects. It's (supposed to be ;-) >> the authoritative source. Rony Flatscher is listed there as PMC member. > > I came across some commit message regarding asf-authorization which > contained a list of members of the jakarta-pmc group and he was not > listed there. So I was unsure. > >> I'm not sure myself how Sebastian's -1 will be weighed here. I would >> have expected that the NOTICE and LICENSE files get fixed and he >> changes his vote. As by his last mail on the topic, the content in >> SVN did not get fixed. If you changed the release files manually, you >> should commit those changes to SVN and give Sebastian some time to >> change his vote. > > We were voting on the artifacts on people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/, not on > SVN. This is at least what I understood the release-then-vote-policy > means. I have committed the latest changes and moved the tag, however. > > If Rony is a PMC member we have a result of 3 +1 votes, which should be > sufficient. However its up to the PMC to decide this. > > Bye, Thomas. > > - > 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: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
Hi Roland, Roland Weber wrote: > Hi Thomas, > >> I could not find any information about whether Rony Flatscher is a >> member of the PMC > > In the committers-only SVN module is a file board/committee-info.txt > which lists the PMCs of all Apache projects. It's (supposed to be ;-) > the authoritative source. Rony Flatscher is listed there as PMC member. I came across some commit message regarding asf-authorization which contained a list of members of the jakarta-pmc group and he was not listed there. So I was unsure. > I'm not sure myself how Sebastian's -1 will be weighed here. I would > have expected that the NOTICE and LICENSE files get fixed and he > changes his vote. As by his last mail on the topic, the content in > SVN did not get fixed. If you changed the release files manually, you > should commit those changes to SVN and give Sebastian some time to > change his vote. We were voting on the artifacts on people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/, not on SVN. This is at least what I understood the release-then-vote-policy means. I have committed the latest changes and moved the tag, however. If Rony is a PMC member we have a result of 3 +1 votes, which should be sufficient. However its up to the PMC to decide this. Bye, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
Hi Thomas, > I could not find any information about whether Rony Flatscher is a > member of the PMC In the committers-only SVN module is a file board/committee-info.txt which lists the PMCs of all Apache projects. It's (supposed to be ;-) the authoritative source. Rony Flatscher is listed there as PMC member. I'm not sure myself how Sebastian's -1 will be weighed here. I would have expected that the NOTICE and LICENSE files get fixed and he changes his vote. As by his last mail on the topic, the content in SVN did not get fixed. If you changed the release files manually, you should commit those changes to SVN and give Sebastian some time to change his vote. Btw, he asked on legal-discuss about the correct usage of these files, but I see little point in delaying the release until that question has been answered. cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Result: [VOTE] Release JCS 1.3
Thomas Vandahl wrote: > Now, shall we release JCS as it is published there? > > [ ] +1 Yes, JCS 1.3 should be released > [ ] 0 I do not care > [ ] -1 No (give reasons) Voting has closed. Here are the results: +1 votes: Hanson Char <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Aaron Smuts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Scott Eade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rony G. Flatscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0 votes: none -1 votes: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (* denotes binding votes of PMC members) I could not find any information about whether Rony Flatscher is a member of the PMC, so would someone with the necessary insight please decide if this vote passed or not. Bye, Thomas. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
