Take 2, after a good sleep :) David, you are plain right. I rehashed the full mail again this morning under my shower, and what you said about revision is just correct.
Forgive my previous answer. I suggest that we freeze the code, create a branch (1.1.0-GA) and vote this branch. Is that OK ? On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:27 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -1 > > I'm all for releasing ADS 1.1.0 real soon now and have no problems with the > > code but... > > This doesn't say what we're voting on. > > We are voting on the Roadmap version (cf JIRA). As soon as all the > issues are closed, we can vote. If every modification and every bug > is filled into JIRA, this is the way to go. > > > While I prefer voting on actual > > artifacts that I can check I'm ok with voting on a specific svn revision of > > a particular code base as long as its clearly specified together with the > > expected build method. This vote looks to me like a referendum on "should > > we tag something and vote on the tag" rather than a vote on something > > specific. > No, this is not a referendum. I really think that a project should be > JIRA driven, and not SVN driven. That does not make a lot of sense to > vote for a SVN IMHO, because there are so much little changes which > could be committed after a vote... Like some svn:ignore tags, or > whatever cosmetic fixes. > > At least, this is the way we work at Directory, and this is now 3 > years and many votes we have proceeded this way. > > I'm sure that other projects prefer some other 'algorithm', but I'm > pretty confident that we are not completly off the track following > JIRA's roadmap. > > > > > So, I'll guess randomly :-) that this is intended to be a vote on > > directory/studio/trunk rev 641069. > > No, this will be a vote on Studio 1.1.0 as described in JIRA roadmap > for this project. > > > > > > First, and this is a blocker, there are no hardcoded LICENSE and NOTICE > > files in svn at the checkout root. I'm happy to help with constructing > > appropriate files but since I don't know anything about studio I can't > > really do it myself. If all the files in svn under the checkout root is > asf > > licensed with no other restrictions (such as from being copied from > > somewhere else) then the AL goes in the LICENSE and the NOTICE file is the > > minimal: > > > > ---------- > > Apache Directory Studio Copyright xxx-2008 The Apache Software Foundation > > This product includes software developed byThe Apache Software Foundation > > (http://www.apache.org/). > > ---------- > > If there is code from other sources please let me know what it is and I'll > > try to help figure out what we need to do. I don't know the Studio > > inception year... this needs to replace the xxx. Neither this LICENSE nor > > NOTICE file needs to reflect any dependencies of the project, just the > stuff > > that is actually in svn. > > This is something we should clearly address before releasing. > Pierre-Arnaud, Stefan ? > > > > > Since this doesn't specify an expected build method I have to assume it > uses > > the only one I know about... maven. > > Felix, Pierre-Arnaud and Stefan spent more than one month creating a > Maven build for this project, with a lot of sweat and blood... So yes, > we have a maven build for Studio now ! > > > In this case this is not suitable for > > release since it has a snapshot parent pom: > > > > > > <parent> > > <groupId>org.apache.directory.project</groupId> > > <artifactId>project</artifactId> > > <version>10-SNAPSHOT</version> > > </parent> > > > > I'm also slightly worried about the SNAPSHOT versions in the properties in > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/studio/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup. > > They might get changed to something that aren't snapshots during the actual > > release process but I have no way to know that. > > In order to release, we usually create a freezed branch, and we setup > all the versions in this branch. As soon as the vote is closed, then > it becomes the release. I think the process is defined on our wiki > (http://directory.apache.org/studio/releasing-a-new-version.html), but > this may need some twiking... > > > > > > It's also extremely desirable to lock down all the maven plugins with > > explicit versions. > > I haven't looked at the pom.xml files, but if there is no dependency > manager, we must add one. > > > > > > Another thing I'm concerned about from a few days ago is that the maven > > build produces some kind of update site thingy that doesn't include legal > > files. I disabled the check for legal files for it. If this is something > > that might get into a maven repo this needs to be fixed. > > We have to check the lack of legal files. > > > > > sorry... > > Don't. Those are important matters, and we have to clean the place > now, otherwise, we will carry those guys for another 6 months period > ... > > > Thanks David ! > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > > > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
