my vote: +1 on giving logkit 1.2 RC6 release status.
comments
--------
I agree with the sentiment. What I want to do is figure out the right level of 'i' dotting. I thought logkit was ready as of two weeks ago, but thanks to a good RC process Leo was able to squash an important bug Noel found. This is nice, and it works because a certain amount of convention on sort-of unwritten release formalities we all sort-of understand. I'm taking some extra time and asking some more questions here so I won't have to later :D
I personally think most people only need:
1) working binary jar (ie bin-dist)
2) working setup for autogeneration of that jar from sources, and a way to modify & optimize that generation process for a custom environment (ie src-dist; a src-dist consisting of only the contents of the src/ dir plus license would even be acceptable for this purpose)
3) up-to-date comprehensive, cohesive and clear online documentation
4) release verification (ie using checksums)
I think RC6 delivers all of the above, and some additional neat stuff to boot, like a relatively intelligent ant script for #2, even if perhaps not quite intelligent enough :D
Steve wrote:
> I'm obliged to put up a -1 pending
<snip/>
> I don't know how you want to handle this but I would suggest
<snip/>
I suggest something else: you change your vote to +1, we get this thing out, and the minor issues you list (and anyone else may find) can be fixed in a point release (perhaps you can take over the "logkit release management baton" and do additional QA, and the main focus can shift to Avalon-Framework).
cheers,
- Leo
Berin Loritsch wrote:
Do we release or not?I am tired of seeing little piddly things come up trying to slow down or derail the release.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
