On 3/9/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, but I'm going to keep quoting the bylaws until I understand how > this works. > > " After a proposed release is built, it must be tested and classified > before being released to the general public. The proposed release may > be assigned "Alpha", "Beta" or "General Availability" classifications > by majority vote. Once a release is classified by the PMC Members, it > may be distributed to the general public on behalf of the Foundation. > " > > That says the "Alpha" label cannot be applied to a release without a > vote. Before that, it's only a 'proposed release'. (The notion of > 'test build' is not in the bylaws.) It also says that alpha releases > can be distributed. > > I have an ulterior motive in wanting to preserve the "official" alpha > designation. MyFaces is waiting on another Shale release-- alpha is > fine, but it needs to be a sanctioned release so it can go in the > Maven repository. > > Thanks for your patience. :)
The notion of a test-build stems from the phrase "After a proposed release is built". We've been using "test build" as a synonym for "proposed release". My suggestion would be that we use three classifications * Alpha Build * Beta Release * GA Release when a committer tags and rolls a build pursuant to a release plan, the build could be granted a default "Alpha Build" status by lazy consensus. After announcing the Alpha Build to the dev@ list, we could vote to change the status to a Beta or GA Release. Once a build is sanctioned by the PMC, then we could announce it to the user list. As to the "ulterior" motive, if something is going to be sanctioned, we might as well sanction it as a Beta. -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
