On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Matthieu Riou <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Assaf Arkin <[email protected]> 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. > So I don't understand what you mean when you say "RCs aren't fully kosher". If there's nothing inherently non-kosher about RCs, and we're not specifically discussing a particular non-kosher process, why not consider doing RCs? Assaf > > 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 < <[email protected]> >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin < <[email protected]> >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert >>>> > > > <<[email protected]> >>>> [email protected]> >>>> > > > 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 < >>>> > > <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>> > > > > >wrote: >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert < >>>> > <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>> > > > > >wrote: >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou < >>>> > > > <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>> > > > > >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" >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >
