Why a beta?
musachy
On 7/28/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I was detached from the preparation until Monday. When no
> one else was able to roll the release, I cleared my schedule, and did
> it myself. I didn't think of making it an
> "ASAP" release until I was preparing
At this time, I'm changing my binding vote on 2.0.6 from GA to Beta.
On 2/22/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's my own +1 for GA.
>
> That makes the tally
>
> Binding
>
> 3 +1 GA - Patrick Lightbody, Rainer Hermanns, Ted Husted.
>
> 1 +1 Beta - Rene Gielen.
>
> Non-Binding
>
> 5 +1
+1 Beta (binding).
On 6/11/07, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are the results of the vote:
>
> +1 GA Ian Roughley (binding), Don Brown (binding), James Mitchell
> (binding), Rene Gielen (binding), Rainer Hermanns (binding)
> +1 GA Pedro Herrera (non binding), Matt Raible (non bi
+1 Beta (binding).
On 6/11/07, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are the results of the vote:
>
> +1 GA Ian Roughley (binding), Don Brown (binding), James Mitchell
> (binding), Rene Gielen (binding), Rainer Hermanns (binding)
> +1 GA Pedro Herrera (non binding), Matt Raible (non bi
At this time, I'm changing my binding vote on 2.0.6 from GA to Beta.
On 2/22/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's my own +1 for GA.
>
> That makes the tally
>
> Binding
>
> 3 +1 GA - Patrick Lightbody, Rainer Hermanns, Ted Husted.
>
> 1 +1 Beta - Rene Gielen.
>
> Non-Binding
>
> 5 +1
Personally, I was detached from the preparation until Monday. When no
one else was able to roll the release, I cleared my schedule, and did
it myself. I didn't think of making it an
"ASAP" release until I was preparing the email.
If I had it to do over again, I'd probably suggest submitting the bi
Thanks Niall for your support.
The vote total is:
2 GA binding
1 GA non-binding
1 Beta binding
I prefer to release this as beta with a note in the announcement. Is it
legal to count the current binding GA votes as beta and release?
PS: I will cut a 1.3.10 end of September.
Paul
Niall Pember
Unfortunately I found a bug in 1.3.9 which means I can't use this
version (I have 1.3.8 deployed in production):
https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-3081
Since 1.3.9 is just a bugfix for 1.3.8 I think we should leave it as a
test build - although if others want it to be officially release
On 7/28/07, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I suppose consulting the PMC would have been appropriate, I disagree
> all votes, no matter what, should be open for 72 hours. In this case, a
> severe security fix release, we should allow a shorter time. Perhaps that
> would be 12 or 18
Don Brown wrote:
Unfortunately, a BETA label doesn't help anybody. The purpose of the
release is to help production systems and they generally don't allow
any BETA jars. And yes, I was able to test the release to my
satisfaction, having been using the stable branch for some time.
Well, if n
On 7/28/07, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Antonio that a 2.0.8.1 would have been more appropriate and
> less risky. Then, we know the only change from a GA-approved release was
> the security fix, which has already undergone considerable scrutiny.
Yes, that might have been a
Unfortunately, a BETA label doesn't help anybody. The purpose of the
release is to help production systems and they generally don't allow any
BETA jars. And yes, I was able to test the release to my satisfaction,
having been using the stable branch for some time.
I agree with Antonio that a 2.0.
There's merit to both sides of the argument, but I believe both have
their excesses too. For "emergency" security releases only, a middle
ground would be to release immediately after 3+1 votes, but not higher
than a BETA grade. This will allow (1) publishing to the Maven repo for
immediate cons
On 7/28/07, Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/7/28, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > While I suppose consulting the PMC would have been appropriate, I disagree
> > all votes, no matter what, should be open for 72 hours. In this case, a
> > severe security fix release, we should
2007/7/28, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> While I suppose consulting the PMC would have been appropriate, I disagree
> all votes, no matter what, should be open for 72 hours. In this case, a
> severe security fix release, we should allow a shorter time. Perhaps that
> would be 12 or 18 hours,
15 matches
Mail list logo
