Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-20 Thread Jesse Kuhnert
As long as the analogies are going I thought I'd continue the story with more of my own Things continue for a while. Mike is happy, Apache is happy. All is well. Mike continues his life long passion of being a master carpenter and Apache helps raise the family. What could be better? ...Then

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-20 Thread Henri Yandell
On 3/20/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: > This 'how we release' conversation has been bouncing around the ASF > for 4 months now, the above is my best grok on the summary. I've not > seen anyone yet speaking in favour of a view that we should have a > vote on t

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-20 Thread David Fisher
Henri, I appreciate what you did to help the POI project stand up and meet Apache requirements. It is an ongoing process - I think the subproject is close to doing it correctly and having a successful release! Cheers! Dave Fisher On Mar 19, 2007, at 10:58 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: On 3

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-20 Thread raffaele_ciapponi
- Original Message - From: "Rahul Akolkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta General List" Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:39 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5 On 3/19/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Something being a good ide

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-20 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Henri Yandell wrote: This 'how we release' conversation has been bouncing around the ASF for 4 months now, the above is my best grok on the summary. I've not seen anyone yet speaking in favour of a view that we should have a vote on the idea of releasing and then someone does it when they can. Pl

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-20 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Niall Pemberton wrote: On 3/14/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: sebb wrote: >> Also I think I need to update >> headers as per [3], is that correct? > > You also need a NOTICE file [3] Updated license headers, added NOTICE to zip/tar.gz. The NOTICE file is missing the copyright

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On 3/19/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Something being a good idea and being "required ASF policy" are really very different things. The suffering is in the implication that I'm not already being careful. That we're not all supposed to be slightly better than average developers wit

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Henri Yandell
On 3/18/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 3/14/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > > You actually have to roll and sign a tarball/zip ball on which the vote > > happens. "Release-then-Vote" seems to be the only accepted way by the > > bo

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Niall Pemberton
On 3/14/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: sebb wrote: >> Also I think I need to update >> headers as per [3], is that correct? > > You also need a NOTICE file [3] Updated license headers, added NOTICE to zip/tar.gz. The NOTICE file is missing the copyright statement - see: http:/

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread David Fisher
I always prefer to optimize my loops by unrolling them and doing each step differently. Funny to talk about pattern matching in a regexp thread :-D Burnt from my release time to have Yegor chew through some POI bugs ... Regards, Dave On Mar 19, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Martin Cooper wrote: On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin Cooper wrote: > On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Martin Cooper wrote: >> > Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal >> > protection. >> >> Who says there is no way to c

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
Yeah, well I consider voting on something that doesn't exist yet to be absurd. So there we are. This whole thread is absurd. There is no technical issue here. cvs tag FOOBAR_1_0_RC1 ant scp... ...crickets... cvs TAG FOOBAR_1_0 ssh... mv FOOBAR_1.0-RC1... FOOBAR_1.0-final... -andy -- Fr

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Martin Cooper
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin Cooper wrote: > On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Martin Cooper wrote: >> > Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection. >> >> Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Nathan Bubna
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin Cooper wrote: > Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection. Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd procedures? For example: community votes for a release, RM tags a release (and

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Martin Cooper wrote: On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin Cooper wrote: > Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection. Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd procedures? Not me. We don't have absurd procedures, s

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 19:01 +0100, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: [... on vote-then-release ...] Trust me, I have done my share of releases this way, too. The thing is, that while it was/is common practice, there are ASF-wide guidelines that are not there to hinder people / add administrative barriers

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Martin Cooper
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin Cooper wrote: > Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection. Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd procedures? Not me. We don't have absurd procedures, so we're already ther

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Martin Cooper wrote: Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection. Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd procedures? For example: community votes for a release, RM tags a release (and prepares files), pmc rubber-stamps it with 'ACK' with

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Martin Cooper
On 3/19/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Something being a good idea and being "required ASF policy" are really very different things. The suffering is in the implication that I'm not already being careful. So you've never made a mistake in your life? And you're willing to bet a

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Jesse Kuhnert
Something being a good idea and being "required ASF policy" are really very different things. The suffering is in the implication that I'm not already being careful. That we're not all supposed to be slightly better than average developers with the apache branding and all. The fact that it's ok t

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Niall Pemberton
On 3/19/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sure, of course it's ok for the ASF to dictate policies - I just hope it's ok for me to question them / point out their flaws. So the real problem as far as I can tell is making sure a release is legitimately licensed. There are other things l

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Nathan Bubna
On 3/19/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok so I'm a liar...I did want to point out that from my experience even the most formal voting process won't get the desired results - that everyone on the project certifies and checks that the binaries going out are good. More than likely 90%

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Jesse Kuhnert
Ok so I'm a liar...I did want to point out that from my experience even the most formal voting process won't get the desired results - that everyone on the project certifies and checks that the binaries going out are good. More than likely 90% of the time everyone just votes yes or no and trusts t

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread J Aaron Farr
"Nathan Bubna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > that said, i would love to see some more automation of > signature/hash/LICENSE/NOTICE/zip-tar-consistency checking. i believe > Henk Penning does have some automated signature checking set up, but > that's all i know of, and it only happens after the

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Nathan Bubna
On 3/19/07, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:30 -0400, Jesse Kuhnert wrote: > Sure, of course it's ok for the ASF to dictate policies - I just hope > it's ok for me to question them / point out their flaws. > > So the real problem as far as I can tell is makin

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Oleg Kalnichevski
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:30 -0400, Jesse Kuhnert wrote: > Sure, of course it's ok for the ASF to dictate policies - I just hope > it's ok for me to question them / point out their flaws. > > So the real problem as far as I can tell is making sure a release is > legitimately licensed. There are oth

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Jesse Kuhnert wrote: Ehh...Obviously I'm alone in my opinion so I'll shut up now, just wanted to make sure I got my two cents in. Make that two of us. ASF today indeed contains much more Administratium (thanks Dave, great link!) than it used to. Vadim ---

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread David Fisher
You have to be kidding me.. The only problem I see is that people are all caught up in policies / processes but I've yet to hear what the actual root "problem" is. I'm sure it's intended to somehow prevent something nasty that has happened in the past but these policies don't have any logic that

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Will Glass-Husain
I think we have to remember that the ASF provides an important legal umbrella here. By setting policies which we follow (which of course can be debated), it prevents us from being sued if an SCO-type situation develops. This would be a low-probability, but extremely catastrophic event, especially

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Jesse Kuhnert
Sure, of course it's ok for the ASF to dictate policies - I just hope it's ok for me to question them / point out their flaws. So the real problem as far as I can tell is making sure a release is legitimately licensed. There are other things like software quality, but I guess it's assumed (by me

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread J Aaron Farr
"Jesse Kuhnert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You have to be kidding me.. > > The only problem I see is that people are all caught up in policies / > processes but I've yet to hear what the actual root "problem" is. I'm > sure it's intended to somehow prevent something nasty that has > happened in

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread David Fisher
I have a thought that may not be an immediate solution. Isn't the correctness of a release from a build point of view a testable condition? Shouldn't this be built in to the build system. The apache servers would not allow an "invalid" package. They define the pattern. Isn't this GUMP? Not

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread sebb
On 19/03/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You have to be kidding me.. The only problem I see is that people are all caught up in policies / processes but I've yet to hear what the actual root "problem" is. I'm sure it's intended to somehow prevent something nasty that has happened in

RE: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Jörg Schaible
sebb wrote on Monday, March 19, 2007 3:09 PM: > On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> sebb wrote: >>> Surely voting on creating a tag (if this is necessary) >> >> Absolutely. Any release tag must be a community decision == vote is >> required. >> >> >>> is completely diffe

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Jesse Kuhnert
You have to be kidding me.. The only problem I see is that people are all caught up in policies / processes but I've yet to hear what the actual root "problem" is. I'm sure it's intended to somehow prevent something nasty that has happened in the past but these policies don't have any logic that

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread sebb
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: sebb wrote: > Surely voting on creating a tag (if this is necessary) Absolutely. Any release tag must be a community decision == vote is required. > is completely different from voting on a release? Not to me. Voting on a release (on a

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
sebb wrote: Surely voting on creating a tag (if this is necessary) Absolutely. Any release tag must be a community decision == vote is required. is completely different from voting on a release? Not to me. Voting on a release (on a tag) signifies that software is in a state where it can

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread sebb
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: sebb wrote: > On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> resulting files. It's quick sine no actual software testing need to be >> performed, just verify that zip unzips and tar untars. > > I think one also needs to check tha

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
sebb wrote: On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: resulting files. It's quick sine no actual software testing need to be performed, just verify that zip unzips and tar untars. I think one also needs to check that: * that the various signature files are present and correct * t

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread sebb
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > Vadim, > > that is not the point. The procedure in itself is flawed. You missed it too :) Existing procedure might be flawed in somebody's opinion, and I'm not arguing that it is ideal, but proposed procedure

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Jesse Kuhnert
Or even better, let everyone follow their own procedures while loosely fitting into a less restrictive set of obvious guidelines wrt licensing / distribution locations /etc - so the rest of us don't have to be punished because one or two projects are having issues getting releases out On 3/19

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: Vadim, that is not the point. The procedure in itself is flawed. You missed it too :) Existing procedure might be flawed in somebody's opinion, and I'm not arguing that it is ideal, but proposed procedure is even worse. It makes any release impossible: release p

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-19 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
Vadim, that is not the point. The procedure in itself is flawed. There might be files now, but the procedure still has to be aligned to ASF wide guide lines. Before you wonder/think about conspiracy theories: Yes, I brought the board (i.e. Henri) attention to this. It is necessary to change

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-18 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Henri Yandell wrote: 3) Creating the actual files that are going to be released and voting on them. There's pressure to go this way, but it's not the policy yet. Vote has passed, so now actual files are made, and are available at the same location [1]. Vadim [1] http://people.apache.org/~vg

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-18 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Henri Yandell wrote: PS I noticed that you forgot to vote this year :-) http://marc.info/?l=jakarta-general&m=11231425543 Vadim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTEC

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-18 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
The vote to release passes with +1s from: Vadim Gritsenko Henning Schmiedehausen Daniel F. Savarese sebb Henri Yandell wrote: There are (to my knowledge) three types of vote/release styles that have been happening at the ASF. 1) A vote to do a release, with no sign of release files. T

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-18 Thread Henri Yandell
On 3/14/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > You actually have to roll and sign a tarball/zip ball on which the vote > happens. "Release-then-Vote" seems to be the only accepted way by the > board these days; Thankfully, neither events in velocity-pri

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-14 Thread sebb
On 14/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: sebb wrote: > The LICENSE and NOTICE files are now in the zip and jar, but they show > up for me as License and Notice. Ideally they should be in capitals. They are: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/public_html/regexp $ tar -tzf jakarta-regexp-1.5-dev.

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-14 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
sebb wrote: The LICENSE and NOTICE files are now in the zip and jar, but they show up for me as License and Notice. Ideally they should be in capitals. They are: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/public_html/regexp $ tar -tzf jakarta-regexp-1.5-dev.tar.gz | grep "dev/[^dsx]" jakarta-regexp-1.5-dev/LICENSE

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-14 Thread Daniel F. Savarese
+1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-14 Thread sebb
On 14/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: sebb wrote: >> Also I think I need to update >> headers as per [3], is that correct? > > You also need a NOTICE file [3] Updated license headers, added NOTICE to zip/tar.gz. > The LICENSE and NOTICE files ought to go into the jar as well,

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-14 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
sebb wrote: Also I think I need to update headers as per [3], is that correct? You also need a NOTICE file [3] Updated license headers, added NOTICE to zip/tar.gz. The LICENSE and NOTICE files ought to go into the jar as well, as the jar may well be used on its own. Added both files to t

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-14 Thread sebb
On 14/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > Hm, > > I hate to spoil you here but according to a recent board discussion, > some discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a completely botched release > attempt in Velocity My condolences to you... > land: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-14 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: Hm, I hate to spoil you here but according to a recent board discussion, some discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a completely botched release attempt in Velocity My condolences to you... land: You actually have to roll and sign a tarball/zip ball on which the

Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-14 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
Hm, I hate to spoil you here but according to a recent board discussion, some discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a completely botched release attempt in Velocity land: You actually have to roll and sign a tarball/zip ball on which the vote happens. "Release-then-Vote" seems to be the only accept

[VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5

2007-03-13 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Hi All, With 5 recent bug fixes [1], one *major* speed improvement for {m,n} closures [2], with other various optimizations to compiler and runtime, and with previous release published sometime back in 2005 [3], now is the best, or at the very least, really good time to to cut next, 1.5 releas