On 4/14/07, Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/14/07, Xavier Hanin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...in the Ivy podling we are currently preparing a release, which I hope
we'll be soon able to submit to the IPMC vote. We've called this release
2.0.0-alpha-1-incubating, since for us
On 4/12/07, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A release can be called wicket-incubating-DO_NOT_USE_THIS_CODE-this-
is-a-legal-reasons-only-release-1.3.0-alpha.zip and we can take care
to not publicize that we release things, but if it is a release, it
still needs to be distributed to the
On 4/14/07, Xavier Hanin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...in the Ivy podling we are currently preparing a release, which I hope
we'll be soon able to submit to the IPMC vote. We've called this release
2.0.0-alpha-1-incubating, since for us too it's primarily a release made to
validate our release
On 4/12/07, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNIP ...
I'm not convinced we actually say (or have always consistently said)
REQUIRED to build a release. IIRC Apache Directory might have
graduated without building a release.
Sure it did. Version 0.8 of ApacheDS was released through the
On 4/12/07, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...There's just this one little tidbit - if the IPMC votes to *release*
something, that something should then actually be released. Release
has a specific meaning and we (have to) do distribution at no charge
to the general public of them. I guess
Hi Leo,
Please take my comments as trying to really understand your concerns.
On Apr 12, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
There's just this one little tidbit - if the IPMC votes to
*release* something, that something should then actually be
released. Release has a specific meaning and
Craig L Russell wrote:
If the podling discovers something else that's wrong, or for some other
reason decides not to release, are you suggesting that somehow the IPMC
is going to go and release it anyway?
To clarify - the RM, whomever created the tarball, always has the last
word until they
On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On 4/4/07, Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there have been changes since the release was cut, a new release
must IMHO be created, so that people can vote (on the wicket lists
first, and then come back here) on the correct one.
On 4/4/07, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:54 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
snip
IMHO we need to alter the process so that we have an explicit audit
when the community feels (by vote) that it has a build process in
place. the code doesn't need to be ready
On Friday 06 April 2007 15:55, robert burrell donkin wrote:
most critical issues i encounter are issues with source. the source
can be checked at any time. potential issues with source should be
addressed as soon as possible. (and yes, i know henri arrived here
long before me.)
the best
On 4/6/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 06 April 2007 15:55, robert burrell donkin wrote:
most critical issues i encounter are issues with source. the source
can be checked at any time. potential issues with source should be
addressed as soon as possible. (and yes, i know
Hi Niclas,
On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Thursday 05 April 2007 05:08, Craig L Russell wrote:
I have a hard time understanding how a podling can consider itself
ready for graduation without having anything worth sharing, and don't
understand what the point is of having
[Should be off-line, but I think we programmer's need to be pointed into some
cultural enlightenment every now and then to broaden our horizons.]
On Friday 06 April 2007 11:44, Craig L Russell wrote:
But please send a link to the meaning of kreti pleti! I love
learning new idioms and it's
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Also, the whole idea of the Incubator is to
withhold releases from the general public.
Just to clarify - I don't think 'withhold' is a good description.
Release - but with no specific expectation of persistence at the
ASF is probably a better description. E.g. here's
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Also, the whole idea of the Incubator is to
withhold releases from the general public.
Just to clarify - I don't think 'withhold' is a good description.
Release - but with no specific expectation of persistence at the
ASF is probably a
On 4/4/07, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Also, the whole idea of the Incubator is to
withhold releases from the general public.
Just to clarify - I don't think 'withhold' is a good description.
Release - but with no specific
On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:54 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 4/4/07, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Also, the whole idea of the Incubator is to
withhold releases from the general public.
No, the idea of the incubator is to make
IMHO the current process is fine but needs to be documented better.
Podlings should be encouraged to release stuff that they think is
usable outside their small world of developers who check out from svn
and build from source. The incubator is set up to review and approve
releases without
I have a hard time understanding how a podling can consider itself
ready for graduation without having anything worth sharing, and don't
understand what the point is of having an audit of anything short of
a build artifact.
Yes, that would be strange :) However, in the case of Wicket, we are
On Thursday 05 April 2007 05:08, Craig L Russell wrote:
I have a hard time understanding how a podling can consider itself
ready for graduation without having anything worth sharing, and don't
understand what the point is of having an audit of anything short of
a build artifact.
20 matches
Mail list logo
