You couldn't have a vote for camel sb 3.1 without the first release of camel. It's not tempting fate.. it's being rational.
Il dom 16 feb 2020, 17:45 David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > (1) is fine. > I don’t think (2) is consistent with Apache policy, why tempt fate? > Maybe what you meant for (2) is to have separate staging repos and > separate but concurrent votes? I think that is fine too. > > thanks > david jencks > > > On Feb 16, 2020, at 8:13 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > The source code should now be ready for the release. > > > > I wanted to start a new thread here as Camel 3.1.0 release is two fold > > since we have moved out spring boot into camel-spring-boot. > > > > So how do we do this release? > > > > 1) > > Can we cut first Camel 3.1.0 and push to staging repo. > > And then afterwards release Camel Spring Boot 3.1.0 as well because > > all the Camel 3.1.0 JARs was built before and are in your local > > m2/repoistory. > > > > And since this is done right after each other then the binaries will > > go to the SAME staging repo. And then we can VOTE on both of them at > > the same time, and run it for 72h. > > > > 2) > > Release camel and camel-spring-boot as 2 different, but have eg 24h > > VOTE for camel-spring-boot to cut down the total time. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > -- > > Claus Ibsen > > ----------------- > > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus > > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2 > >
