On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 08:16:42 -0400, James Mitchell wrote: > I just want us to decide and move on.
Since no one was voting, I assumed that it "died in commitee", and we did move on. Ted Husted wrote: > My own feelings aside, I updated the website to coincide with what > we discussed here. and > Accordingly, I strengthened the need for a formal plan in the > Release Guidelines and Bylaws, and I also tweaked the Release Plan > checklist for 1.2.5 to clarify the terminology and sequence of > events. The changes are in the repository and posted to the site, > subject to lazy consensus. AFAICT, the website is in synch with these discussions, and everyone should be satisfied for now. I think the underlying problem is that the release-plan checklist was ambiguous as to when a distribution can be announced. As a result, the 1.2.5 distribution was prematurely announced as a beta, when most of us would have expected it to be announced as an "alpha" or "test" build. I've removed the ambiguity from release-plan checklist. If the current form is followed, I don't think we will have any more problems. I would suggest that everyone review the current form of the 1.2.5 release plan, the release guidelines, and the bylaws. We do need to keep these documents in synch with our discussions to prevent misunderstandings. As we "modularize" Struts in to subprojects, it is important that we are "all on the same page." * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease125 * http://struts.apache.org/releases.html * http://struts.apache.org/bylaws.html -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
