I would also be open to reducing the voting time to say 24 hours for a bugfix release. The problem could be to get everyone to agree on what a bugfix release is... That was mentioned in the reference mail thread as well.
/Anders On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Robert Scholte <[email protected]>wrote: > Just digged a it i our mailinglist: > http://markmail.org/thread/jiopzlaz3w4jvjfa > > I still like the idea of Stephen: > My preference is that the criteria is "at least 3 * +1 from mojo > developers OR 72h lazy consensus whichever comes first". > > Robert > > > Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:13:37 -0800 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] FW: gwt-maven-plugin releases > > > > > Hi MOJO team, > > > > I would prefer a voting period even as short as 24 hours, to give > > mojo dev a chance to looking into. and I dont want outside world > > would think MOJO is just dumping ground move artifact to Central. and > > finally with a policy in place, it would make the release dev think > > twice about cutting the release in in term of quality. > > > > My 2 cents > > > > -D > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Robert Scholte <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > FYI > > > > > > Robert > > > ________________________________ > > > From: [email protected] > > > Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 15:54:53 +0100 > > > Subject: Re: gwt-maven-plugin releases > > > To: [email protected] > > > CC: [email protected] > > > > > > [+cc [email protected], there's no > > > reason to keep it private] > > > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > > Let me first put things in context: > > > - this project is at mojo historically; it was probably the best place > at > > > the time to get some visibility (and we can probably thank Mojo for > that) > > > - if I hadn't taken over the leadership, it'd probably be dead now. I > took > > > the lead because I needed a few things and nobody were taking over from > > > ndeloof. Actually I didn't take the lead, I'm only a de facto leader: > I'm > > > making releases because I need them, and I've been given the > authorizations. > > > - the project already "broke" the mojo rules before I came to maintain > it, > > > by moving the sources to github (OK, not completely moving per se, as > they > > > were sync'd to the svn) > > > > > > On a day to day basis, maintenance is a pain: the project's code > quality & > > > design choices (YMMV), having to mirror github to svn from time to time > > > (which is still better than using svn or even git-svn), deploying > sites to > > > codehaus using webdav (even worst that only to update the plugins page > I had > > > to wait 3 minutes that the upload finishes; 3 minutes only for 4 chars > > > removed in one file). > > > > > > I don't enjoy maintaining this plugin. I do it because it has to be > done, > > > and I need it to be done. > > > > > > Furthermore, I'm moving GWT itself to Maven (from Ant) and having a > plugin > > > in GWT proper seems the logical thing to do going forward. I'm also > working > > > on a new plugin (from scratch) to that effect. If all goes well, you > can > > > expect 2.5.0 to be the last release at codehaus, at least by me. > > > > > > You'd understand then that I don't really mind following the rules. > > > Moreover, I strongly believe users of the plugin aren't looking at the > mojo > > > mailing list to follow the releases, they follow maven-users list, the > > > dedicated Google Groups, the GitHub commits and/or me on Twitter or > Google+, > > > I don't see any value in subscribing to a mailing list just so that I > can > > > post to it, and will never read it (meaning I won't read replies to the > > > things I'd post; such as Anders' post). > > > > > > Don't take it as an attack or whatever against Mojo. I'm just being > > > pragmatic and willfully refusing to "take part in Mojo": it's not my > thing, > > > I didn't want it, yet it's still better than a fork. In case I need to > > > release a 2.5.0-1 or 2.5.1 version of the gwt-maven-plugin, I can > already > > > tell you that I won't change anything to my procedure (or leave it to > > > someone else to follow the mojo rules). If that means the project is no > > > longer welcome at mojo, then I'll either leave it or move it elsewhere > > > (rather leave it, given that I'm writing a replacement plugin). > > > > > > Oh, and BTW, there was a vote for 2.5.0-rc2: > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/codehaus-mojo-gwt-maven-plugin-users/ErZsnMIbOp0/discussion > > > (and I did put [email protected] in copy, but as you said, I'm not > > > subscribed to any mojo-codehaus list, so it was bounced). > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > Le 6 nov. 2012 20:24, "Robert Scholte" <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > > > > > Hello Thomas, > > > > > > I noticed you released the gwt-maven-plugin recently. > > > I was kind of surprised, because I didn't received a call for vote, as > we do > > > for all mojo releases. > > > Anders Hammar already tried to make this clear [1], but it seems like > you're > > > not subscribed to this list. > > > If you're not subscribed to any of the mojo-codehaus lists, it's not > > > possible to send announcements to them. > > > > > > We ask you to follow the release procedures with care next time[2] > > > It's not meant to be bureaucratic, but gives the team a change > validate the > > > plugin. > > > I'd like to have feedback on my releases from the team, so no stupid > > > mistakes are pushed to Maven Central. > > > And I sure hope you do that too. > > > > > > best regards, > > > > > > Robert Scholte > > > > > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/dkquazoudcecyl3y > > > [2] http://mojo.codehaus.org/development/performing-a-release.html > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > > >
