Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 02.02.2011, 14:01 +0000 schrieb Guillaume Nodet: > The fact you voted -1 puts a lot of pressure on me if I want to go to > the majority in order to have those released ;-)
Probably yes. So I have to apologize to have rushed in with a would-be-veto. I should rather only have raised my concern without placing a vote. > Last, remember each PMC decides on its own rules to govern its project. Right -- to a certain degree. There are things a PMC cannot decide on. And this is what makes the ASF strong. > So the fact Roy sent an email on Jackrabbit doesn't make it an > official policy for the ASF (and the ASF itself doesn't care about > such technical details). Since I could not come up with any official policy and assuming that thus there is none, I have to agree with you here ... > > I'll re-roll those releases, Thanks a lot. > but I'd like things to be agreed upon > *and* documented at some point. Agreed. My opinion is to state, that each vote must be with a new, increased version number regardless of the outcome (success or failure) or earlier votes of the same project. Regards Felix > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 14:59, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 14:18, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> My vetoes (actually there is no veto in a release vote since this is a > >> majority vote) > > > > I know there's no vetoes in releases, but the goal is usually to > > gather a consensus. > > The fact you voted -1 puts a lot of pressure on me if I want to go to > > the majority in order to have those released ;-) > > > >> are grounded on a message Roy Fielding once sent to the > >> Jackrabbit list [1]: > >> > >>> The problem with doing all of our laundry in public is that the public > >>> often download our unreleased packages even when we tell them not to. > >>> For that reason, most Apache projects increment the patch-level number > >>> each time a new package is produced (releases do not need to be > >>> sequential). > > > > I suppose that depends on the definition of "most". Over the dozen of > > projects I'm involved at the ASF, this is the first time I see that. > > Maybe for projects like httpd that was the case, but I don't expect > > many people that aren't felix committers to have downloaded those > > released in the last 48 hours, so I still stand by the fact that in > > our case, people are very aware that the jars aren't official yet. > > > > Anyway, if that's us becoming an official Felix project policy, I'd > > like that to be written somewhere. Oral tradition is not really good > > for newcomers ;-) > > > >> > >> Unfortunately I cannot readily find the written rule for this, but this > >> makes perfect sense to me, which is why I would prefer to get a new > >> version number. Which is also why I always choose a new version number > >> for a release vote after I had to cancel a vote. > >> > >> Regards > >> Felix > >> > >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/533ybky6pqwwc2is > >> > >> Am Mittwoch, den 02.02.2011, 11:16 +0000 schrieb Guillaume Nodet: > >>> Over the past two years, I've been doing several releases in Felix and > >>> i've re-rolled some with the same version without any problems. > >>> I don't see any mention about not reusing the same number twice in the > >>> release process: > >>> http://felix.apache.org/site/release-management-nexus.html > >>> What's the driver behing that ? > >>> > >>> Until those releases are published, poeple accessing those are fully > >>> aware of waht they are, so I don't see that as a problem. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Guillaume Nodet > > ------------------------ > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > ------------------------ > > Open Source SOA > > http://fusesource.com > > > > >
