On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Matthieu Riou > <matthieu.r...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Milinda Pathirage < >> milinda.pathir...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > According to my experience with Axis2 and Axis2/C releases, we first do >> the >> > branching and doing some RCs based on that branch. If users and >> developers >> > report bugs in RCs we fixed them and do another RC. Finally, if every >> one >> > happy about the latest RC we doing the release based on that. the axis2 >> > release process is described here at >> > http://ws.apache.org/axis2/release-process.html. I think it's good if >> we >> > can >> > have unified release process like that for ODE. WDYT? >> > >> >> The problem here is around release candidates. When you choose to promote >> a >> RC to "final", either you have to re-vote on the new binaries that have >> been >> rebuilt (removing the RC from the binaries name) or what you release isn't >> necessarily exactly what people really voted on. The latter is >> problematic. > > > You're voting on the final release, and part of the decision is based on > the fact that, during its limited life, the RC did not attract any major > issues. RCs do not have to be carbon copies of the final, just limiting the > impact of changes as you go up the tiers of stability (alpha -> beta -> > gamma/rc). So I don't see the problem here. > Given where we are, I believe it only makes sense to release a 1.3.1 at this point. Then we can discuss the optimal release process separately. In your above scenario, IIUC you don't vote on the RC. Meaning that you can't advertise it on the website, only to developers. Matthieu > > Assaf > > [1] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate > > >> >> The former involves further delays, a heavier process, ... >> >> Matthieu >> >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Milinda >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ciaran <ciar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert < >> boisv...@intalio.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3. It >> > > should >> > > > > have been a RC1. >> > > > > >> > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without >> > qualifiers >> > > > if >> > > > > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released" >> but >> > > > > there's >> > > > > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking >> it's >> > the >> > > > official 1.3 release? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > The first question many people will have when they download 1.3.1 >> is >> > > > "What >> > > > > happened to 1.3?" >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > 1.3.1 >> > > > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing >> with >> > > > pulled-back release 1.3. >> > > > >> > > > 1.3 >> > > > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging. >> > > > >> > > > Assaf >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > alex >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou < >> > > matthieu.r...@gmail.com >> > > > > >wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert < >> > boisv...@intalio.com >> > > > > >wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou < >> > > > matthieu.r...@gmail.com >> > > > > >wrote: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ? >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going >> to >> > be >> > > a >> > > > > new >> > > > > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion. >> Hence >> > > > > 1.3.1. >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially >> > > released >> > > > so >> > > > > >> where's the harm? >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first >> > > chance >> > > > of >> > > > > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you >> > running?" >> > > > and >> > > > > the >> > > > > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are >> cheap. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML >> > about >> > > > 1.2 >> > > > > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back >> then >> > > was >> > > > > that >> > > > > > it was "wrong" :) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Matthieu >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> alex >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although today >> our >> > > testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used to >> work, >> > > still trying to diagnose :( >> > > - Cj. >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > http://mpathirage.com >> > http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service Developers" >> > http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services With Axis2/C" >> > >> > >
