OK, ack. No more comment about that from my side.
I will keep your comments in mind. Anyway, I will move forward on my actions and release cycle for the good of the project ;) > Le 5 févr. 2021 à 18:52, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 16:21, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> I take the fault, no worries. I did the release, but I was swamped with >> bunch of things and not completed cleanly. >> > > In general I have no issue with that, things clearly come up. > > Some things can be prioritised though, e.g completing the > delayed/outstanding release process before starting and participating > in new discussion about doing more frequent releases as happened. > >> I will fix that. >> >> I think I know well enough the Apache release process on different Apache >> projects (I can’t count the number of releases I did and still doing) to >> know that I did bad on the last ActiveMQ one. >> I would like to remind that it’s the first time I messed with the >> announcement, and I will fix that. > > I have actually raised this on multiple previous occasions, and there > have been further occasions inbetween where I haven't. > >> >> So, sorry about that and, again I will fix that. >> If you wanna help, you are welcome. > > I would agree with Chris that it is preferable or at least typical > that one person completes the process, it's generally far simpler. > That said folks can certainly agree with others to coordinate on > things if needed though. Typically thats done beforehand, or at least > in a timely fashion if unexpected things comes up. > > If you dont arrange things with others and/or send mails indicating > you are going to do it, people are generally not going to expect they > are needed to assist with the relatively simple final tasks of the > release, or wont do it to avoid stepping on the original persons toes. > If you instead need help, ask for that rather than reassuing you are > doing it, which likely only delays things further. > > I did update the website for 5.16.1 despite this thread last week > though, once I had realised it still wasnt on the site after a week > but a CVE announcement relating to it had already been made since. > With announcements especially though, its awkward to just step in and > do it, as you ought to coordinate first that the original person isnt > also doing it at the same time, and knows not to repeat it later etc, > plus again you had repeated you were doing it, and so I just noted I > was leaving that. > >> >> On Apache projects, when I see people having issue (time, personal, …), I >> propose my help. That’s the way it works IMHO. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >>> Le 5 févr. 2021 à 17:12, Christopher Shannon >>> <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>> With the discussion of trying to do quarterly releases and keep to a >>> schedule I am going to chime in here and bring up the fact that I think >>> that going forward as a project we need to do a much better job at >>> completing the release process. Recently it seems that most releases are >>> vastly delayed in having emails sent and the website updated, etc. I've >>> done a ton of releases for 5.x and I know it's a bit of extra work to do >>> things like update the site, CVE announcements, release announcements, etc >>> but it's all part of doing a release. The process doesn't end when the vote >>> ends and the artifacts are uploaded. >>> >>> Obviously doing a release is voluntary and no one is obligated to do one >>> (but it is appreciated of course). However, that being said, my opinion is >>> if someone chooses to take on the task of doing a release and be the >>> release manager for it they need to complete the entire process in a timely >>> manner and not let it drag on for days and weeks. >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Let me check (I did it but maybe forgot to send ;)). >>>> >>>> I will fix that if it didn’t go. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>>> Le 5 févr. 2021 à 16:46, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Did I miss the announcement going out? Seems like it should have been >>>> done >>>>> by now but I don't see it, although website appears to but updated now. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Robbie, >>>>>> >>>>>> I was about to update website. Thanks for catching this ! >>>>>> >>>>>> I will move forward on announcement. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> JB >>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 29 janv. 2021 à 14:38, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> a >>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have just updated the website to change the download page to 5.16.1, >>>>>>> add the 5.16.1 release page (which notes the announced CVE Gary >>>>>>> already updated the site with), and fix the broken links for the >>>>>>> 5.16.0 page. The site should be updated before the prior release is >>>>>>> removed from mirrors, or it breaks the links. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I leave any further tweaks and announcements needed to you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 05:00, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry, I’m late about website update, announcement and CVE publication >>>>>> for ActiveMQ 5.16.1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will fix that asap (at least during the week end). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry about that, >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> JB >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Tim Bish >>>> >>>> >>
