I think doing a monthly or simi-monthy unstable would be excellent,
and would save a lot of work. As for naming, I don't really care.
We are releasing milestones right now, and they don't really
represent "defined" goals anyway.
-dain
On Apr 26, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
I like the idea of publishing monthly builds, but calling them a
Milestone when there was no defined and met milestone doesn't quite
make sense...
Why not just ask Prasad (or Jason w/ GBuild) to include the
testsuite in the daily run that includes the unit tests -
Subject: [BUILD] TRUNK: Successful for Revision: 532672
Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:37:43 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenEJB trunk at 532669
Geronimo Revision: 532672 built with tests included
. . .
and then just pick one of those that passes every week to publish
to the snapshot repo and to publish for users to download? That
way, as the testsuite gains more component coverage, we'll
naturally move towards a more formal test process before releases
are selected to vote on.
-Donald
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Here is a question to ponder. Would anyone object if I simply
made these binaries available from people as a monthly unstable
release? Given the amount of time it takes to spin this up and
vote I'd rather just pick an svn version and make it available. I
think it burns up a lot of people's time to follow the release
process. Simply pop out the binary, let people play with it and
if things are broken there is always trunk. Perhaps we could move
to a weekly unstable.
Anyway, I'd like some thoughts on this.
On Apr 26, 2007, at 2:39 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Starting DISCUSS thread if necessary for this release.
