yes it is our responsibility, i am not arguing that. but we have designated people who handle it for us. why do we need to have a bunch of people with little clue looking at it when we have two people who are very good at it doing so?
-igor On 2/9/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/10/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > also why do we all need to look into it? most of us are not release people, > we dont know much about building one or what is correct and incorrect. You're part of the PPMC. That means that the release is *our* responsibility. For 1.2.x released outside the ASF it doesn't mean much, where the release is much based on trust that I didn't mess it up. Also, it would be nice that someone other than me would take a look and see if, for example, the examples run correctly, or that Wicket builds a correct jar, or that the README contains the correct information. Apache releases need to be scrutinized before released to make sure no wrongly licensed code is present, that the notice files are in place etc. the 1.2.5 would be a nice way of rehearsing this review process. The webwork/struts 2 guys have a nice write up for their release procedure [1]. Can one of our mentors tell more if [1] is too high ceremonial, or just right? Martijn [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/WW/creating-and-signing-a-distribution.html > -igor > > > On 2/9/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Didn't do anything about it... had a crazy week. So apparently nobody > > objects to releasing these zips. I guess everybody took a good look at > > them? > > > > Martijn > > > > On 2/8/07, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Other than what I've mentioned it looks fine (what did you do about the > > > notice/license in jar files? > > > > > > Frank > > > > > > On 2/7/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Did everybody take a close look at the release candidate? Is it good > > > > for general availability? > > > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > On 2/4/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Now available. > > > > > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > > > On 2/4/07, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Another thing: Where is wicket-examples? > > > > > > > > > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/4/07, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/4/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] Don't release, because... > > > > > > > > [x] Share these files with the greater public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well... :o) > > > > > > > The artifacts looks "ok" since we don't release them as ASF > > > > endorsed. They > > > > > > > of cause lack the stuff we have been working on for 1.3. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing though. It's good that you have put the DISCLAIMER in > > the > > > > NOTICE > > > > > > > files, but perhaps we should also have it in the jar files (the > > > > NOTICE I > > > > > > > mean). But then again it's an unofficial release... WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Vote for Wicket at the > > > > http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket > > > > > Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! > > > > > http://wicketframework.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Vote for Wicket at the > > > > http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket > > > > Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! > > > > http://wicketframework.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Vote for Wicket at the > > http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket > > Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! > > http://wicketframework.org > > > -- Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
