On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:24 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
- Re-releasing 1.5 is IMHO not possible. We have rolled tarballs and
jars which have been available from
http://people.apache.org/dist/velocity/1.5/ Some people are bound to
have downloaded them and they might even spread. We can denounce
them as "not officially released" but if we re-roll 1.5 tarballs, we
will end up with bug reports against bogus versions.
This is why you review and vote on artifacts before they go out.
BTW: I don't actually buy into the "smooth transition" argument
anyway,
however I can not really reinforce it. If you have an app that uses
1.4
or 1.3 for a long time and you just drop 1.5 in, you are in for a
surprise. There is always dependency upgrading (which we could have
stated more prominently in the release, but we do have it on the web
site now (http://velocity.apache.org/engine/devel/upgrading.html,
once
the mirror caught up), so adding that link in the announcement is IMHO
fine.
That's not true. Historically, we have bent over backwards in this
project to make upgrades predicable and stable.
As a compromise, I'd like to propose to keep the 1.5 release and
call it
"Release candidate" in the same way as httpd calls it's releases x.y.z
and assigns them "levels of quality" such as (Alpha) (Beta) (Release
Candidate) (General Availability). So this would then be
Velocity 1.5 (Release Candidate) with probably Velocity 1.5.1 (General
Availability) following.
No - that's confusing. 1.5 RC would be followed by 1.5 GA
This would mean that we reduce our planned 'press campaign' to an
announcement on the dev list and the RSS feed and run the real
thing for
1.5.1.
I will not release if we have a -1 vote even if we do have three
PMC +1
votes. I know the 'Apache rules' would back me here, but I would feel
uncomfortable to do this without unanimous consent from the PMC
members.
Will felt strong enough about this to not just abstain but to vote -1,
so we should try to resolve this and get him to retract his vote.
Look - you said yourself that the code is fine, it's the other stuff
that's problematic. So.....
I did pull the release archives from people.apache.org. If we can
resolve this on short notice, good. If not, we are basically stuck
with
Mid-March as the next possible release date (and a third vote) if I
should do the release or someone else stepping up as release manager.
I'd like to hear opinions from others to that. I'd also like to
encourage you to lobby Will to withdraw his -1 :-)
You did the right thing by taking the problematic binaries off of the
URL right now for starters. These were never presented to the public
as released binaries, so I'm not worried about people being confused.
I think that given the significance of this release, we want to get
this right in as many details as humanly possible. Thanks for all
the work you put into it - it was a great effort. Now others can
help w/ the final polish.
geir
Best regards
Henning
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
