Re: [v104] Ready
On 12/31/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/31/06, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No pending issues against 1.0.4 snap in JIRA ATM (the couple of open ones are sufficiently addressed IMO), so pending ~24 hours for any feedback on the dry run (let me know if you need more time), I will move towards a final set of proposed artifacts (and a vote). -Rahul Picking my way through the release notes (nice job on the updates :-), I notice we still have the following statement regarding the expected final vote: - snip - This is the fourth milestone release of Shale, released to encourage experimentation and gather feedback on usage issues and requested features. A final vote on quality has yet to take place for this release, but it will likely be voted to be of beta quality due to the following issues: - Reliance on a snapshot of the unreleased Standalone Tiles package. However, many of the APIs in Shale are reasonably stable -- for details, see Shale API Target Audiences and Stability Ratingshttp://shale.apache.org/api-stability.html . - snip - We had talked earlier about the idea of doing quality rankings on the individual packages separately, so that we'd have a chance to grant a GA quality vote on some remaining portion other than shale-tiles. If we still feel this way, I'd suggest modifying this text to something like this: This is the fourth milestone release of Shale, released to encourage experimentation and gather feedback on usage issues and requested features. A full vote on quality has yet to take place for this release, but will take place later. We plan to vote on the quality of each module separately (where necessary). For example, the shale-tiles module is likely to receive a grade no higher than Beta because it relies on a snapshot of the as-yet unreleased Standalone Tiles package. As a plan B, we could pull shale-tiles from this release entirely, and release it separately (with its own release grade vote), as I'm pretty confident that this would be the only exception. I'd be OK with this but would still prefer that everything was packaged together and we did the vote rankings specficially, with wording something like the above. Thoughts? snip/ Agreed (I prefer Plan A), thanks for the feedback. The previous blurb existed in the 104 release notes since this thread didn't get much feedback as to what that blurb should be: http://tinyurl.com/y6dnbe I have now updated the notes based on this feedback. -Rahul Craig
Re: [v104] Ready
On 12/31/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We had talked earlier about the idea of doing quality rankings on the individual packages separately, so that we'd have a chance to grant a GA quality vote on some remaining portion other than shale-tiles. If we still feel this way, I'd suggest modifying this text to something like this: This is the fourth milestone release of Shale, released to encourage experimentation and gather feedback on usage issues and requested features. A full vote on quality has yet to take place for this release, but will take place later. We plan to vote on the quality of each module separately (where necessary). For example, the shale-tiles module is likely to receive a grade no higher than Beta because it relies on a snapshot of the as-yet unreleased Standalone Tiles package. +1 to the above. Greg
[v104] Ready
No pending issues against 1.0.4 snap in JIRA ATM (the couple of open ones are sufficiently addressed IMO), so pending ~24 hours for any feedback on the dry run (let me know if you need more time), I will move towards a final set of proposed artifacts (and a vote). -Rahul
Re: [v104] Ready
On 12/31/06, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No pending issues against 1.0.4 snap in JIRA ATM (the couple of open ones are sufficiently addressed IMO), so pending ~24 hours for any feedback on the dry run (let me know if you need more time), I will move towards a final set of proposed artifacts (and a vote). -Rahul Picking my way through the release notes (nice job on the updates :-), I notice we still have the following statement regarding the expected final vote: - snip - This is the fourth milestone release of Shale, released to encourage experimentation and gather feedback on usage issues and requested features. A final vote on quality has yet to take place for this release, but it will likely be voted to be of beta quality due to the following issues: - Reliance on a snapshot of the unreleased Standalone Tiles package. However, many of the APIs in Shale are reasonably stable -- for details, see Shale API Target Audiences and Stability Ratingshttp://shale.apache.org/api-stability.html . - snip - We had talked earlier about the idea of doing quality rankings on the individual packages separately, so that we'd have a chance to grant a GA quality vote on some remaining portion other than shale-tiles. If we still feel this way, I'd suggest modifying this text to something like this: This is the fourth milestone release of Shale, released to encourage experimentation and gather feedback on usage issues and requested features. A full vote on quality has yet to take place for this release, but will take place later. We plan to vote on the quality of each module separately (where necessary). For example, the shale-tiles module is likely to receive a grade no higher than Beta because it relies on a snapshot of the as-yet unreleased Standalone Tiles package. As a plan B, we could pull shale-tiles from this release entirely, and release it separately (with its own release grade vote), as I'm pretty confident that this would be the only exception. I'd be OK with this but would still prefer that everything was packaged together and we did the vote rankings specficially, with wording something like the above. Thoughts? Craig
