Hi, Moving the discussion on the list. See additional comments below.
Cheers, Dave 2008/11/16 Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi, > > As a meta comment, it would be better if we had this discussion on > [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you agree, feel free to forward my response there. > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Dave Meikle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Release Artifacts * > > Given the situation with PDFBox I was thinking about just not releasing > the > > standalone version of Tika, but as there are options should I hold a > quick > > vote on the list for the best way to do this? > > Sounds good to me. I think it's good enough if you just send a summary > of what you plan to do, i.e. a "Tika 0.2 release plan". A vote is only > needed if people disagree and a reasonable consensus can not be > reached through discussion. > > > Also, I was planning to use the release version 0.2 instead of > > 0.2-incubating - I assume this is OK as the vote for graduation has > passed > > or is there another formal step that has to take place first? > > Yes, good point. I updated the version label in Jira accordingly. > > > * Web Site * > > For the website I have been spending some time updating the pages, > focusing > > on the formats and then the documentation. As I will need to update the > > whole site for the download I was wondering if I should be updating all > the > > references to incubator to lucene for the move? (Much the same as the > > version number above) > > > > Based on the above answer that will decide my links for the downloads. > > I just committed some related changes, I hope I didn't conflict with > your changes. In any case; yes, we should update the site to reflect > that Tika is now a part of Lucene instead of the Incubator. > > > * Release Process * > > > > I was planning to take a branch for all the tweaks that are release > > specific, tag that, build release candidate from the tag, raise vote, > etc. > > At the end the tag could be copied and the changes merged into head. This > > was to avoid updating HEAD resulting in having the version number updated > > for anyone how takes a checkout and the site updated, as I believe this > is > > being done as the result of a cron script in your pao account. > > > > Is this an OK way to do it? Was going to document the process I followed > > somewhere so we can refine as an ongoing guide. > > Yeah, you'll want to drop the -SNAPSHOT from the version number only > in the 0.2 branch. > > However, I don't see what 0.2 -specific changes there are that would > then need to be merged back to the trunk. The web site is a live > publication that should always be updated in the trunk. > What I was thinking about was the changes to the website to reflect the 0.2 download URLs. We won't want them "live", when the release candidate is being voted on, and potentially a cycle of candidates taking place. > BR, > > Jukka Zitting >
