On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:09:14 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
>
> Grouping Alpha, Beta and GA as Release designations only, and
> calling anything not voted on a Test Build makes it crystal clear.
I'm -1 on four designations.
The designations
* Test Build
* Beta Release
* General Availability release
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:54:35 -0700, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> I don't care if we go with implicit alpha ratings versus no rating
> at all -- indeed that probably makes more sense. I do care if, for
> example, I can go create a "Struts-Faces Integration Library 1.0.1"
> release (even if it's labell
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:54:35 -0700, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:39:44 -0700, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:28:29 -0400, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:47:56 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:38:15 -0700, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (BTW, I'm more than a little surprised at the amount of energy you're
> putting into this, Ted, given that you've told us all you're going
> Emeritus anyway, so that those of us remaining will be the folks
> rolling the
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:39:44 -0700, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:28:29 -0400, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:47:56 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
> > > When we first started discussing changes to the way we build and
> > > release
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:28:29 -0400, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:47:56 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
> > When we first started discussing changes to the way we build and
> > release Struts, the model that was proposed was the Tomcat model,
> > and that is still the m
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:31:45 -0400, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:13:51 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
> > Do you have a particular objection to adopting the Tomcat scheme,
> > which Craig and I, at least, prefer over the HTTPD scheme? Can't we
> > just settle on the T
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:13:51 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
> Do you have a particular objection to adopting the Tomcat scheme,
> which Craig and I, at least, prefer over the HTTPD scheme? Can't we
> just settle on the Tomcat scheme and move on?
I've seen some casual descriptions of the "Tomcat schem
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:47:56 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
> When we first started discussing changes to the way we build and
> release Struts, the model that was proposed was the Tomcat model,
> and that is still the model I would like to see us follow,
> terminology and all.
I believe the initial
From an innocent bystander...
For what it's worth, based on my experience following the Tomcat
developer list, it pretty much works exactly as the HTTPD description
below (a).
To back it up, here's the quote fromt he latest release vote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Tomcat 5.5.3 has been available for about a we
something I'd ever think of as that's what I view the
> >>>> nightly builds to be.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> A release requires a vote, whereas a build does not. Also,
> >>> referring to a test build as alpha is prejudging the q
referring to a test build as alpha is prejudging the quality of
>>> the build; it could be better than that, or it could be worse,
>>> and IMNSHO it reflects badly on us if we first claim it's alpha
>>> and later are seen to change our minds about that, whichever
>>
een to change our minds about that, whichever way the
> > > change goes.
> > >
> > >> I do believe we should be voting on Beta and up though. Beta
> > >> should (hopefully) be bug-free -- a build we anticipate to be the
> > >> "major release".
PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Adopt HTTP Release Guidelines (was Re: [Announce]
Release of Struts 1.2.5 (beta))
>Also, referring to a test build as alpha is prejudging the quality o
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:32:30 -0400, Ted Husted wrote:
> Again, here's my +1 for adopting the HTTPD release protocol, with
> the one modification of using the term "Alpha build" in lieu of
> "Alpha release".
Or, we could even go the whole nine yards and use use "Test Build" in lieu of "Alpha
Relea
NSHO it reflects badly on us if we first claim it's alpha and
>> > later are seen to change our minds about that, whichever way the
>> > change goes.
>> >
>> >> I do believe we should be voting on Beta and up though. Beta
>> >> should (ho
r way the
> > change goes.
> >
> >> I do believe we should be voting on Beta and up though. Beta
> >> should (hopefully) be bug-free -- a build we anticipate to be the
> >> "major release". Perhaps my thinking is flawed :-)
> >>
> >
> > H
Also, referring to a test build as alpha is prejudging the quality
of the build; it
could be better than that, or it could be worse, and IMNSHO it
reflects badly on us if we first claim it's alpha and later are seen
to change our minds about that, whichever way the change goes.
This is something
E] Adopt HTTP Release Guidelines (was Re: [Announce]
Release of Struts 1.2.5 (beta))
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:39:43 -0500, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When you say "test build", do you mean "alpha release"? The two terms
are
synonymous in my mind, so voting on an
ld (hopefully) be bug-free -- a build we anticipate to be the
>> "major release". Perhaps my thinking is flawed :-)
>>
>
> Have you ever experienced bug-free beta software? For that matter,
> have you ever experienced bug-free software at all? ;-)
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:25:32 -0700, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 on the "test build then vote to rank" approach that Tomcat uses.
>
> As an additional clarification, I presume that we will want the same
> release process for any subproject releases? This is becoming timely
> a
D]>
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 2:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Adopt HTTP Release Guidelines (was Re: [Announce]
> Release of Struts 1.2.5 (beta))
>
> > +1 on the "test build then vote to rank" approach that Tomcat uses.
> >
> > As an additional clarification
Let's just stick to what we're already using, and what our users have
already been exposed to, which is Test Build and {Alpha|Beta|GA}
Release.
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=27596
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=27824
Mixing "Alpha Build" an
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Adopt HTTP Release Guidelines (was Re: [Announce]
Release of Struts 1.2.5 (beta))
+1 on the "test build then vote to rank" approach that Tomcat uses.
As an additional clarification, I presume that we will want the same
release proce
How about if we follow the HTTPD protocol but replace the term
"Alpha Release"
with
"Alpha Build"
and then refer to a "distribution" when we could be talking about a "Alpha Build" or
"Beta Release" or "GA Release".
* http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html
And, yes, I would agree that there
7
AIM: jmitchtx
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Germuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Adopt HTTP Release Guidelines (was Re: [Announce]
Release of Struts 1.2.5 (
+1 on the "test build then vote to rank" approach that Tomcat uses.
As an additional clarification, I presume that we will want the same
release process for any subproject releases? This is becoming timely
as the opportunity for a 1.0.1 release of struts-faces draws nigh. It
might be worth menti
At 10:55 AM -0700 10/18/04, Martin Cooper wrote:
The 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 test builds didn't make it to releases. That is as
it should be - we want releases to be quality builds.
What I feel very strongly about is that nothing should be called a
Release until we vote on it, especially since I believe th
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:13:10 -0500, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 9:35 AM -0700 10/18/04, Martin Cooper wrote:
> >On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:07:41 -0500, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Here's my +1 for adopting the HTTP server release process, with
> >> >whatever modific
At 9:35 AM -0700 10/18/04, Martin Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:07:41 -0500, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here's my +1 for adopting the HTTP server release process, with
>whatever modifications we deem necessary.
I agree with this. I believe we should consider anything a rele
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:07:41 -0500, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Here's my +1 for adopting the HTTP server release process, with
> >whatever modifications we deem necessary.
>
> I agree with this. I believe we should consider anything a release
> which has gone through the release c
Here's my +1 for adopting the HTTP server release process, with
whatever modifications we deem necessary.
I agree with this. I believe we should consider anything a release
which has gone through the release checklist and had a version number
assigned and a corresponding tag applied to SVN. Th
Our release guidelines page is ambiguous as to whether we need to vote on an Alpha
classification. (Mea culpa.)
* http://struts.apache.org/releases.html
I believe the original intent was to follow the HTTP server practice where "When a
release is initially created, it automatically becomes alph
Actually, it's not Beta (or Alpha or GA) nor is it a Release, until we
vote on it, in, say, a week from now. At this point, it's just a Test
Build. Until the community has got used to this new build numbering
scheme, we need to be very careful about how we label each build.
--
Martin Cooper
On S
The Apache Struts community is pleased to announce the release of Struts
1.2.5 (beta). This is primarily a bug fix release. Feedback is greatly
appreciated.
After some time has passed to allow for adequate testing, a vote will be
cast to determine the quality of this release. At that time, if S
35 matches
Mail list logo
