+1 Please feel free to assign any task to me if you need.
thanks Prasad On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Eric Sammer <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd like to volunteer to be the RM for the 1.0.0 release. I have an > attachment to this first release (both of NG and since we joined the ASF) > and would like to see it through. > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Prasad Mujumdar <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > As next the step for 1.0 release preparation - > > > 1) Move all the non-blocker Jiras to a new release version 1.0.1 > > > 2) Mark NG alpha 3 as released > > > 3) The NG work will continue as 1.0.1 and trunk will be 0.9.5 > > > > > > Please let me know if you are agree to the Jira changes. > > > > +1. > > > > One clarification - the release version will be 1.0.0, the release > > type will be alpha. > > > > Thanks, > > Arvind > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks > > > Prasad > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Eric Sammer <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Patrick. > > >> > > >> To be clear(er) I was definitely not suggesting a binary only release. > > Just > > >> that it seems like we could reduce the barrier to initial testing and > > >> feedback if we released a non-production ready version of the NG > branch; > > >> that's really what I was after. > > >> > > >> It sounds like the right thing to do is simply create a release of NG > > and > > >> be clear to users that it's an early release for testing. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Eric Sammer <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > Mentors, is there any other ASF connotation to calling something a > > new > > >> > > major version? I want to make sure I understand what I'm talking > > >> > > about. ;) > > >> > > > >> > See this, anything else you do is up to you. > > >> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what > > >> > > > >> > but to be overly clear the following statement is in error: > > >> > > > >> > > "The goal would be to create a downloadable artifact for people to > > test > > >> > and play with without needing to build the project from source" > > >> > > > >> > That is not your goal wrt Apache. Your goal is: > > >> > > > >> > "The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All > > >> > releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make > > >> > changes to the software being released." > > >> > also > > >> > "Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for > > >> > releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more > often. > > >> > Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software > > >> > development." > > >> > > > >> > If you want to also provide a convenience artifact (ie binary(s)) > > >> > along with the source release artifact that's fine, but that's not > > >> > what you are "releasing". > > >> > > > >> > We face the same issue in ZK. We resolve it by releasing new > official > > >> > versions and just messaging what's stable vs beta vs alpha etc... > > >> > That's what you have a web site for. Blogs, etc... We did the same > > >> > thing in Whirr. > > >> > > > >> > Start creating & publishing releases often, that's the only way to > get > > >> > things into user's hands. > > >> > > > >> > Patrick > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Eric Sammer > > >> twitter: esammer > > >> data: www.cloudera.com > > >> > > > > > > -- > Eric Sammer > twitter: esammer > data: www.cloudera.com >
