On 11/12/2007, at 3:17 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 10 Dec 07, at 4:04 PM 10 Dec 07, Brett Porter wrote:
On 11/12/2007, at 9:08 AM, Mauro Talevi wrote:
Dan Fabulich wrote:
Well - it was recently agreed that no vote was required for
alphas.
That's surprising to me... I'd at least post to dev to make sure
you don't get a -1.
I distinctly remember that alphas should be released with more
ease and not the same formality.
But I decided to call for a vote unifying it to the move out of
sandbox.
I'll then double check the alpha release process and update the
webpage for reference.
Someone suggested that, but I happen to disagree with it (if you
need less formality, make nightlies accessible) - a releases is a
releases is a release :) This seems consistent with the Apache
foundation documentation also.
A release in terms of legal requirements and packaging sure.
Official releases should get more attention, while alphas should be
expelled as fast as humanly possible for feedback. How can you argue
against that? We probably make 10x releases then anyone else at the
ASF. Getting something working out to users to try in the least
cumbersome way should be the goal.
3 +1's is a requirement, 72 hours is a common courtesy to people who
don't have all day to watch the maven lists. I have no objections on a
previously-unreleased, still-in-the-sandbox plugin being released
faster if it makes some sense. I was just clarifying that it isn't any
less formal in terms of voting, though I guess I did a poor job on the
clarity aspect.
FWIW, my mindset comes from wanting to eradicate the endless alpha
mentality from this project. I'd rather see us never do one again and
make snapshots easier to consume, and final releases happen more
regularly.
But I really don't need to go into it here because it's irrelevant to
the release-quality work that Dan, Mauro and others have been doing on
surefire.
- Brett
