On 6/5/08, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1) The *test* artifacts aren't meant to be distributed via releases, > > or used for anything beyond local testing, IIRC. (the usecases apps > > are meant to demo features). I would prefer we leave them out, to > > avoid many differences in this point release. You should be able to > > just blow those *test* directories / artifacts away in the m2 staging > > repo / dist area. > > > Thanks, Rahul. Just to clarify, you're suggesting that we include the > usecase apps in the release, but *not* include the *-test artifacts > (except the ones that are core, like shale-test itself), correct? > <snip/>
Yes, so the list of artifacts in v1.0.4 listed here (except obvious changes such as shale-tiles): http://markmail.org/message/kpy7tlfj6m2xq7e6 > > ... or some such. The important bit is to note the initial quality as > > beta. This is one of the things I did not do when posting the CfV for > > v1.0.4 (and we had to clarify that in a separate thread later). This > > way the release announcement can state the initial quality to be beta > > (and that it will potentially be revised later). > > > I don't have a problem with that. IIRC, other projects (Struts, Tiles) > don't specify the quality at all until after the release is posted. > They just push a release and later declare it alpha, beta, or GA. I > don't mind specifying initially that this will be beta if that makes > people more comfortable voting. > <snap/> I have a slight preference for starting with a beta, but its your call :-) That won't affect my vote (I intend to check the artifacts by Saturday). -Rahul
