On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Assaf Arkin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > I was referring back to the thread I linked to earlier ([1]) and the related discussions that happened in legal discuss (also linked in that thread). So when I was talking about RCs it was in that context (again, voted RCs released as final from the same tag/branch without re-voting). I don't have anything against RCs as an industry practice. We (as an Apache project) just need to handle them carefully because of the release process. With that process in mind, the possibilities I see are: - Vote on RCs and final releases. Longer, heavier process (2x72h). - Only vote for final releases. The RCs are therefore unofficial and not meant for wide consumption. - We could also choose to not have releases tagged as RCs and skip numbers as a result. If a release is good, we vote on it, otherwise we cut the next. What I like about the last option for ODE is that it's simple. But we can probably make the second one work too if jumping numbers is A Big Deal. Matthieu [1] http://markmail.org/thread/o73bu7mo2tqnrv2p > 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" >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
