I think originally we were more strict on changing the version number
after failed votes, but we've since backed off. The reason for not being
as strict, if I recall, is that people can still download the failed
version while it's available with the signatures and put them up on some
web site and call them official and people wouldn't know because the
signatures are valid. So, what are we really gaining by changing the
version number?
-> richard
On 2/2/11 9:01, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Last, remember each PMC decides on its own rules to govern its project.
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).
I'll re-roll those releases, but I'd like things to be agreed upon
*and* documented at some point.
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
