On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.r...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Of course, I'm not disputing that. The problem is with a very specific way > to handle RCs (vote on it and then just release from the same tag/branch > without re-voting) not with RCs in general. > > Matthieu > > > > > > Assaf > > > > > > > > > > > > Matthie > > > > > >> > >> Assaf > >> > >> [1] < > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate > > > >> > 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> > >>> ciar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin < <ar...@intalio.com> > >>> ar...@intalio.com> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert << > boisv...@intalio.com> > >>> 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>matthieu.r...@gmail.com > >>> > > > > >wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert < > >>> > <boisv...@intalio.com>boisv...@intalio.com > >>> > > > > >wrote: > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou < > >>> > > > <matthieu.r...@gmail.com>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://mpathirage.com > >>> > <http://wso2.org>http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service Developers" > >>> > <http://wsaxc.blogspot.com>http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services > >>> With Axis2/C" > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > Just so you're aware, it looks like there are still file handles being left open on the 1.xx branch, WSDL files aren't being deep-deleted properly (when under heavy deployment and un-deploment load.) We're investigating currently, but haven't isolated the issue just yet :( - C.
