PMC - your mission, should you choose to accept it... ;-) I think that verbiage is getting in the way a little bit... IMO the term 'release' may get people thinking that they will be able to drop the old for the new. I've mentioned this before... I just don't see that happening in the short-term. Seriously, there are many - many details that need to be ironed out.
Can we adopt a 'release dialect' that helps communicate the following to the community more clearly? As an example... Development / Nightly Release (Nightly) Bleeding edge... you get what you get and you don't throw a fit. Jira issues are not typically logged against nightly builds. Alpha Release (Alpha) Features / functionality are frozen. Any / all issues found should be logged in Jira. May contain issues trivial -> critical. Beta Release (Beta) Any / all issues found should be logged in Jira. May contain issues trivial -> major. The goal is to reduce the major and critical issues - progressing towards a release candidate. Release Candidate (RC) Any / all issues found should be logged in Jira. Logged issues may be deferred for future releases. May contain issues trivial -> minor. If present, major issues should include workarounds ( if possible ). Stable / Production Release (SR ) Ready for ham sandwiches. Eh? ( I'm not canadian ). -- Rick Winscot On Monday, January 23, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Frédéric Thomas wrote: > In order to focus and work on what will be included in the first release, > it's maybe not a bad thing to do a list what will not be included in it. > > We knew already about the RSLs, now, automation, what else ? > > Frédéric Thomas > > -----Message d'origine----- > From: Bertrand Delacretaz > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:58 AM > To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org (mailto:flex-dev@incubator.apache.org) > Subject: Re: [Automation] Could we lose automation for legal or business > reasons? > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM, David Arno <da...@davidarno.org > (mailto:da...@davidarno.org)> wrote: > > ..."Hey world, > > here's the first ever Apache release of Flex. Please note, before > > attempting > > to use it, you should read our release notes where we detail all of the > > bits > > of Adobe Flex that you likely use, but that Adobe chose not to denote to > > us > > after all. You'll likely stick with 4.6 as a result, but hey at least Flex > > is open source now, even if it's broken." > > > > Great PR that would be!... > > As an incubation mentor I have previously suggested that creating a > first release as soon as possible would be a good thing in terms of > "training" this team with the Apache release process. > > I still think that's a good idea, and I assume we wouldn't make much > noise about such a release. We can call it a "subset release" or > whatever's suitable, its just a good step towards making a first > "real" release that Flex users find really useful compared to the > current Adobe Flex release. > > If you're frustrated about the full code donation taking too much > time, that's a totally different topic IMO. If the code had been fully > donated already, I would still recommend releasing it as soon as > possible, but for users having a release that doesn't bring any new > features is not really useful anyway, so that wouldn't change this > situation. > > -Bertrand
