Re: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
Remy, Do you have any thougts on the allowable stability tags? Projects variously seem to use alpha, beta, RR (restricted release), GA (general availability), RC (release candidate) and EA (early access). Sometimes they use 'a' and 'b' instead of alpha and beta - I'd really like to see documentation that ensures consistency. Also, what are your thoughts on identifying src, documentation, binary releases and combinations thereof? -- Michael -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
Remy, Do you have any thougts on the allowable stability tags? Projects variously seem to use alpha, beta, RR (restricted release), GA (general availability), RC (release candidate) and EA (early access). Sometimes they use 'a' and 'b' instead of alpha and beta - I'd really like to see documentation that ensures consistency. It will use the same conventions as Apache 2. So it is Alpha, Beta and Stable. Also, what are your thoughts on identifying src, documentation, binary releases and combinations thereof? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
Remy Maucherat wrote: On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Ignacio J. Ortega wrote: De: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Enviado el: miércoles 24 de abril de 2002 23:41 Which will be the rules to advance the build numbers? Probably every time the release manager feels the code is stable and better than the previous build. I'm +1 on the proposal, with the mention that the 'label' should be attached _after_ one week or so - i.e. after the milestone is tested. Each milestone should work and pass some basic tests. +1. Very good policy IMO, as it avoids the need for the release manager to try to estimate the stability of the milestone. If accepted, I'll document the new policy in the release plan. Do not forget to mention that the dev list MUST be informed in advance of the release (2 or 3 days and better not on Friday). So let's see if we reach a GA before 4.1.35 ;-) Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
For the uninitiated, the numbering is: major.minor.build build_stability So for example, the first 4.1.x release would probably be numbered: Apache Tomcat 4.1.0 Alpha ballot [ ] Yes [ ] No /ballot (feel free to provide comments to justify your choice) +1, we have choosen that numbering for mod_jk in jtc ;) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
Do not forget to mention that the dev list MUST be informed in advance of the release (2 or 3 days and better not on Friday). Ok. So, according to the old release plan, a first milestone (4.1.0, instead of being called 4.1 Beta 1) will be released (tagged) this friday. Since it can be difficult to build binaries, I'll upload one in: http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-4.0/test/v4.1.0 I'm fixing the release plan, and I have some trouble explaining how the Apache 2 build numbering scheme an release process works. Feel free to fix it in the document. So let's see if we reach a GA before 4.1.35 ;-) Lol. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ballot [X] Yes [ ] No /ballot Big time... -- I think that it's extremely foolish to name a server after the current U.S. President. B.W. Fitzpatrick -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Ignacio J. Ortega wrote: De: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Enviado el: miércoles 24 de abril de 2002 23:41 Which will be the rules to advance the build numbers? Probably every time the release manager feels the code is stable and better than the previous build. I'm +1 on the proposal, with the mention that the 'label' should be attached _after_ one week or so - i.e. after the milestone is tested. Each milestone should work and pass some basic tests. Agreed... The stability label can be attached and changed over time... For new releases, they all should come out as Alhpha unless the code is solid Beta stage is assigned after internal/committer tests, and GA (Generally Avaliable) is only when we get feedback from users saying it works... Pier -- I think that it's extremely foolish to name a server after the current U.S. President. B.W. Fitzpatrick -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
De: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Enviado el: miércoles 24 de abril de 2002 23:41 Which will be the rules to advance the build numbers? Saludos , Ignacio J. Ortega -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
Which will be the rules to advance the build numbers? The method in httpd land seems to be once every 1-2 weeks, as long as there are significant changes. Sometimes, one major change (minor security fix or higher priority fix) is enough to cause a build number advance. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
I like the idea. +1 for me. Amy Remy Maucherat wrote: Costin has suggested to me in a private email that the Tomcat project could adopt the Apache 2 numbering scheme (starting with Apache Tomcat 4.1). I think this is a good idea. For the uninitiated, the numbering is: major.minor.build build_stability So for example, the first 4.1.x release would probably be numbered: Apache Tomcat 4.1.0 Alpha ballot [ ] Yes [ ] No /ballot (feel free to provide comments to justify your choice) I vote yes. If the opinion is that this is a good idea, I'll revise the release plan for 4.1 to reflect this change. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Ignacio J. Ortega wrote: De: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Enviado el: miércoles 24 de abril de 2002 23:41 Which will be the rules to advance the build numbers? Probably every time the release manager feels the code is stable and better than the previous build. I'm +1 on the proposal, with the mention that the 'label' should be attached _after_ one week or so - i.e. after the milestone is tested. Each milestone should work and pass some basic tests. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Ignacio J. Ortega wrote: De: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Enviado el: miércoles 24 de abril de 2002 23:41 Which will be the rules to advance the build numbers? Probably every time the release manager feels the code is stable and better than the previous build. I'm +1 on the proposal, with the mention that the 'label' should be attached _after_ one week or so - i.e. after the milestone is tested. Each milestone should work and pass some basic tests. +1. Very good policy IMO, as it avoids the need for the release manager to try to estimate the stability of the milestone. If accepted, I'll document the new policy in the release plan. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:59:45 -0700 From: Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme Which will be the rules to advance the build numbers? The method in httpd land seems to be once every 1-2 weeks, as long as there are significant changes. Sometimes, one major change (minor security fix or higher priority fix) is enough to cause a build number advance. Remy is too modest to point out that he's used this approach on the Slide project as well (http://jakarta.apache.org/slide and it seems to work quite nicely. +1 Remy Craig -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] New version numbering scheme
On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 07:41, Remy Maucherat wrote: ballot [X] Yes [ ] No /ballot I actually like the Linux style, with odd minor numbers for unstable releases and even for stable ones, but this is not bad too. Bojan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
