Fred I think Tom's feedback is good, but since he +1'ed the release, I think we should go ahead. At this stage, I don't think we should modify the build or the ZIPs/TARs/etc. The vote passed on those elements and they should get posted as is. My view is that we should post the changelog, etc on the site alongside those artefacts, and modify the trunk to include them in future.
I have to admit, I am slightly biased towards fleetness of foot, as we are itching to get a Synapse release out and we are waiting on Rampart and hence WSS4J, but my suggestion is also inline with the usual pattern that happens when there are minor issues raised on other releases, especially in the Incubator where I hang out. What are your thoughts? Is my proposal good enough to go with? Paul -------------------------------------- By my count, we have the following results: 3 +1s from Apache WS PM members (http://ws.apache.org/#Members) 6 non-binding +1s No other votes were cast. I am therefore pleased to announce that the vote has passed! We did, however, get some requests from Tom Jordahl on the ws-general list: 1. Include the ChangeLog.txt in the distribution (my fault -- it's in the svn repo, but not the dist) 2. Indicate that the Jiras fixed were only fixed in the 1.5.4 release 3. Change the front page to indicate the release version and date I'm not exactly sure how to proceed with this, though I can present some alternatives: A. Manually modify the distribution and site before deployment B. Modify the branch/tag to reflect these changes C. Modify the mainline only to reflect these changes D. Respin a set of bits/Jars I'm pretty firmly against D, because properly speaking, we would have to re-vote on the release (ship the bits you test). Strictly speaking, we would be violating that rule by tampering with the distribution ZIP, but we would not be changing any of the built bits, so in that sense, I think A is okay, at least marginally. The problem comes with build reproducibility; if we ever wanted to reproduce the bits as released (site and dist), we'd rightfully need to make the changes on the branch/tag. The real question is, what is the liklihood of that? I'd say it's pretty UNlikely, and is worth the risk to just make manual changes to the site and distribution ZIP, and then just record the changes on the mainline, for future reference. So I guess I'm inclined towards a combination of A and C, with perhaps a note in the README in the tag indicating what additional manual steps were taken for the dist and site changes. Thanks! - -Fred -------------------------------------- -- Paul Fremantle Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2 Apache Synapse PMC Chair OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
