On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.r...@gmail.com>
wrote:
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.
In my scenario there's an RC, a separate entity from the final
release. And it may have passed through the release process and voted
on. Or not. I didn't specify because it doesn't seem to matter.
So "not kosher" seems to me like inventing one very specific process
and using it as strawman to argue that RC is problematic by nature.
Assaf
Matthie
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"
>
