If there's a particular issue that one of us believes simply must be in the next milestone, then we should mark it as a "blocker". Anything else is fair game for the next milestone.
The text of the bylaws talks about "showstoppers" and the "status file". In practice, JIRA is our working status file as to releases, and the showstoppers are "blocker" issues. The status file language means that only committers can set a "binding" blocker (since the status file is under SVN). Of course, like anything else, marking an issue "blocker" carries an obligation to try and resolve the issue. One ASF volunteer cannot delegate work to another volunteer, and we are all volunteers. The best we can do is indicate our own short-term plan to work on a resolution, hopefully with the help of other volunteers. -Ted. On 3/5/07, Philip Luppens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/5/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We had set yesterday as a tag date for 2.0.7, so the release process > has begun. The release process for 2.0.x will likely be ongoing for > some time yet. Apologies - I've been quite busy, so I missed that announcement. I saw Tom updated a lot of issues to 2.0.7 yesterday, so I assumed it was going to take a little more before a new release. Phil > > Depending on how much there is to do, I was going to tag and roll it > today. The amount of time I have to spend is finite, so at some point > we have to decide whether to roll some issues over to 2.0.8 or hold > the tag for another week or so. > > The release process itself is a lot of work, so everyone needs to > pitch in and help apply patches like these, if we want to continuing > rolling GA quality releases. > > -Ted. > > On 3/5/07, Philip Luppens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/5/07, Mike Baroukh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for your reply .. > > > > > > >I would file an optimization request > > > > > > It's not an optimization : it's a bug ! > > > > Ah, my mistake - I thought it was working correctly, and you only > > wanted an optimization. In that case, just reopen the issue. > > > > > In fact, I added 2 comments on it at the end : the last one is an > > > optimization but the previous on is a bug I had to correct on my project > > > to make it work ... > > > > > > That's why I post this message : I hoped it will not be missed for 2.0.7 ... > > > > Should be no problem. If it's reopened, and scheduled for 2.0.7, it > > should be fixed for 2.0.7. Afaik, the release process for 2.0.7 hasn't > > started yet. > > > > Cheers, and thanks for reporting, > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > Philip Luppens a écrit : > > > > On 3/5/07, Mike Baroukh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I added a comment on ww-1747 : > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1747 > > > >> but it is still mark as fixed. > > > >> > > > >> May I add comment on a fixed issue or do I have to open a new one ? > > > >> Is there a JIRA howto ?? > > > > > > > > Afaik, no - but feel free to reopen an issue if you think it's > > > > relevant. In this case, there's a thin line between reopening or > > > > creating a new one. I would file an optimization request and link it > > > > to the WW-1747 issue, but reopening the issue would be acceptable as > > > > well. And if not, someone will step up and change it anyways. So don't > > > > worry too much about it. > > > > > > > > Hth, > > > > > > > > Phil
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
