On 5/17/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Announce" and "mirror" are two different things. IIRC, Apache's general
guidelines on "mirror" are GA releases only (although we've probably been
among the folks that bypassed that policy on occasion).
The FAQ suggest that all releases b
On 5/16/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/16/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the solution is to:
> 1. Make betas publicly available and widely known like our 1.1 betas
were
+1
I think the notion that we can't announce and mirrors Betas is a
misunderstanding. We
On 5/17/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd guess 90+% of other open source projects seem to do just fine
doing all the testing and voting before the release.
I'm not aware of any project, open or closed source, that only issues
"stable" or "GA" releases without issuing any type of bet
On 5/17/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, so if you don't think this is the answer to the backwards release
then test problem, what is?
I don't know. Earlier 1.x releases had the benefit of the entire team
focused on them, and more people using nightly builds. That's no
longer the
On 5/17/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with Ted and Paul that we should only vote on the actual
signed distribution that's going to be uploaded. It's easy to imagine
accidentally introduce a problem when you're building the final
distribution. I wouldn't be comfortable uploa
On 5/16/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the solution is to:
1. Make betas publicly available and widely known like our 1.1 betas were
+1. Based on this and other comments, I'd like to add the following
to the release guidelines [1]:
* Versions with significant changes, espe
On 5/16/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I won't cast a quality vote on anything but a tagged and rolled,
downloadable distribution. Many of the problems we've had in the past
(not just this time, but with other series too) appear in the final
product and are not evident in a checkout.
I am also -1 because on #2 that's not how I understand the
voting process to work. It's cut a version, publish it out as
beta for developers to use, vote later on it. I model my thoughts
after what I've seen on Tomcat.
-- Paul
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/16/06, Don Brown <[
I am +2 with Don's idea. Quite frankly, my favorite Apache projects
besides Struts are Tapestry and Tomcat, and those PUT OUT BETA versions
on their website. The versions are specifically listed as beta, and then they
change the website to list it as GA if a vote changes it.
-- Paul
--- Don Brown
On 5/16/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the solution is to:
1. Make betas publicly available and widely known like our 1.1 betas were
+1
I think the notion that we can't announce and mirrors Betas is a
misunderstanding. We can mirror an announce *any* release, even an
Alpha.
What I dislike is spending untold personal hours fixing all known
issues and putting out a release, only to have it continually shot
down, not available to anyone. Specifically:
1. Our release plan states we only make GA's available on the mirrors
and from the download page, so anything less is
I hadn't made a point of responding since the vote was already
closed, but I've come to agree that the problems identified with the
1.3.4 build are sufficient to make it a "beta", and further, I've
just identified one or two other things that are worth nothing that
probably further justify that
12 matches
Mail list logo
