Rick Hillegas wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Rick Hillegas wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Kathey Marsden wrote:
Rick Hillegas wrote:
As a test of this, I have updated the description of 10.4.2.1.
You can see this by clicking on the link you forwarded. Does this
format look reasonable to you?
I think we cannot include an url to the Sun build in Jira.
According to:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
"Do not include any links on the project website that might
encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds,
snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package.
...
Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for
releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more
often. Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache
software development.
That www.apache.org/dev/release.html policy governs distribution of
software produced by an Apache project and made available for
download from an Apache website.
Why are we concerned about tracking releases produced by non-Apache
entities, such as Sun?
And IBM. And anyone else who wants to build a distribution from the
community branches. We're talking about tracking and fixing bugs
which are logged against commit points on a community codeline,
whether that is the development mainline or one of our stable
branches. This is useful to everyone who drinks out of the common well.
but it doesn't make sense for an apache project to reference somebody
else's external (non-Apache) build or distribution. --That's a
slippery slope that would then need to accommodate anybody who comes
along. And we should never bump the Derby release number to
accommodate an external project.
Hi Jean,
If you need to fix bugs in the metadata queries, then you have to bump
the last digit of the release id in order to coax Derby into
recompiling the queries. This is what IBM did to fix DERBY-3919.
Committers fix bugs all the time in order to accommodate external
projects. Do you believe that the community has agreed to a limitation
on updates to the last digit of the release id, and if so, what are
those limitations?
I think I'm not quite understanding the fundamental issue here. I have
no problem with Sun tech support finding a problem, doing the fix, and
committing it to Apache. Or IBM doing the same thing. Or Joe WhomEver
from Company X.
The issue is if any external entity fixes something in their own distro
that hasn't been contributed back to apache yet, they're on their own. I
don't think we should accommodate that. But rereading this, I don't
think this is what you intended and I misunderstood. I'm sorry.
Sun effectively released from the 10.4.2 branch to include a fix that is
in that branch at Apache, but "10.4.2" isn't specific enough to identify
what comprises that release. Is this right? :-)
In this case, I agree that we might want to consider bumping the digit
on a per-request basis, but I want to make sure that we do this in a way
that makes general sense. And I also realize that this might conceivably
leave us open to criticism that we are enabling support for unofficial
releases.
My actual preference here is if there's a need for release with, let's
say, 2 bug fixes, go ahead and release officially. :-) I would think
that a branch + 2 fixes (or however many) would be an easy shoe-in for a
release vote because all the heavy lifting was done on that release for
that branch.
-jean
