In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Ellison writes: > > Mark Hindess wrote: > > I agree with Tim on this issue. I think making a release, with the > > testing, evaluation and voting involved, should not be something that > > downstream projects dictate. Doing this release would seem to set a > > precedent that I would not be happy with. > > > > I would be inclined to vote -1 for any formal release that isn't simply > > the next milestone release. Of course, this is not necessarily my final > > decision. > > > > The downstream project should use our current release or if they have > > a desperate need for something more recent then they should be more > > flexible. > > Just to be clear about my views -- I have no objection if we choose to > effectively freeze new feature work in the verifier so that Eclipse > can take a copy of the source code at a well-defined revision number > with some assurance from us that it is not in a great state of flux.
I agree. Taking source code, rather than a binary, in this manner is fine. > However, if we are going to produce a formal milestone, that has > undergone the testing, checking, signing, and distribution via ASF > mirrors then we owe it to all our users for that to be the best > quality we can produce. And that means the feature freeze, code > freeze, test and voting cycle that we have established for the > project. And any binary release should follow this process (even if it is only a partial release of the verifier). -Mark.
