the problem is now?
txs and LieGrue,
strub
--- Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com schrieb am Mo, 29.6.2009:
Von: Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r788761 - /commons/proper/email/tags/EMAIL_1_2/
An: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Datum
jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com schrieb am Mo, 29.6.2009:
Von: Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r788761 - /commons/proper/email/tags/EMAIL_1_2/
An: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Datum: Montag, 29. Juni 2009, 7:37
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:13 AM,
sebbseb
been done, it is very unlikely that this gets cancelled.
LieGrue,
strub
--- Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com schrieb am Mo, 29.6.2009:
Von: Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r788761 - /commons/proper/email/tags/EMAIL_1_2/
An: Commons Developers List dev
: Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r788761 - /commons/proper/email/tags/EMAIL_1_2/
An: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Datum: Montag, 29. Juni 2009, 12:22
What do you mean by cutting a
release? If this means building the
distribution files, then your
Henri Yandell wrote:
The most important part to consider is 'What can go wrong?'.
In the case of making 1.0 and deleting if it fails, let's imagine the
release then pauses. For example Collections 3.3. We would then have
the possibility of a 3.3 tag that people would think meant something.
In
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Henri Yandellflame...@gmail.com wrote:
The most important part to consider is 'What can go wrong?'.
Ok, here's my reply to your question. Assuming that I am forced to
follow the procedure as outlined by you. That means that I am forced
not to use the
On 28/06/2009, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Henri Yandellflame...@gmail.com wrote:
The most important part to consider is 'What can go wrong?'.
Ok, here's my reply to your question. Assuming that I am forced to
follow the procedure as
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:13 AM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you sure that is the case?
The Commons release wiki page implies that one can provide the RC number as in
commons.rc.versionRC2/commons.rc.version
Obviously commons has managed to introduce yet another peculiarity in
its
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Siegfried
Goeschlsiegfried.goes...@it20one.at wrote:
I think this things were discussed a couple of times before and my
understanding of it
+) we use the M2 release plugin to cut the RC
+) the RC is using the real release tag because it is referenced in
the
Hi Sebastian,
when the vote fails I have to delete the tag manually and create a new
release candidate ...
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
sebb wrote:
On 27/06/2009, Siegfried Goeschl siegfried.goes...@it20one.at wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
I think this things were discussed a couple of times
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:13 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly, which means that the tag is not immutable.
So what?
--
Don't trust a government that doesn't trust you.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On 27/06/2009, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:13 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly, which means that the tag is not immutable.
So what?
So one cannot unambiguously use the tag to refer to the source that
was used for the build.
--
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:41 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
So one cannot unambiguously use the tag to refer to the source that
was used for the build.
Vote accepted = Release tag
Vote denied = RC# tag
Sorry, but I fail to see a problem.
Jochen
--
Don't trust a government that doesn't
On 27/06/2009, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:41 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
So one cannot unambiguously use the tag to refer to the source that
was used for the build.
Vote accepted = Release tag
Vote denied = RC# tag
Sorry, but I
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:48 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
AIUI, the GA tag is created before the vote. If the vote fails, the
tag has to be deleted and recreated for the next vote. I.e. the tag is
not enough to identify the source of what was voted on.
I agree with you that *release* tags
The way I did it with Proxy was to create proxy-1.0-rc* tags and just
like sebb said, when the vote finally passed, I copied the successful
rc tag over to the proxy-1.0 tag. I think that's the best way to go
with respect to our release voting procedures in commons.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 5:55
The most important part to consider is 'What can go wrong?'.
In the case of making 1.0 and deleting if it fails, let's imagine the
release then pauses. For example Collections 3.3. We would then have
the possibility of a 3.3 tag that people would think meant something.
In the case of making
On 26/06/2009, sgoes...@apache.org sgoes...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sgoeschl
Date: Fri Jun 26 16:44:37 2009
New Revision: 788761
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=788761view=rev
Log:
Preparing next release candidate
Removed:
commons/proper/email/tags/EMAIL_1_2/
That is
18 matches
Mail list logo
