+1

On 11/23/05, Elias Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 for release.
>
> On 11/22/05, Anil Gangolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I haven't had time to check out the latest release candidate.  I hope to
> > try both a clean and upgrade install before voting, hopefully tonight.
> >
> > No objections to branching if you want to move ahead on trunk development.
> >
> > --a.
> >
> >
> > Dave Johnson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > A release candidate is ready to go, docs are up to date and we have
> > > two  +1 votes for release:
> > >    Henri +1
> > >    Dave +1
> > >
> > > Let's wrap up this vote and declare 2.0 done.
> > >
> > > Allen and I are proceeding with Roller 2.1 features. So if we are not
> > > ready for immediate release, I'd like to move the trunk to
> > > branches/roller_2.0.  Once the release is final I'll move that to
> > > tags/roller_2.0. Any objections to that?
> > >
> > > - Dave
> > >
> > > PS: here's a link to the updated docs for 2.0
> > > Roller 2.0 docs:
> > > http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=RollerDocumentation_2.x
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 7, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Dave Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Nov 7, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> that's fine with me, but do we really have Roller 2.1 code ready to
> > >>> be committed?  i have stuff in my workspace that is meant for 2.1,
> > >>> but it's not really ready to be committed yet.  Are we that far
> > >>> away  from a 2.0 release that we need the branch?  Couldn't these
> > >>> things be  finalized by the end of the week?  AFAIK the only things
> > >>> outstanding  are db script related.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I  was assuming finalization of Roller 2.0 was further off than
> > >> that,  but you are correct we're  basically done and should get
> > >> Roller 2.0  out of the way. So here goes...
> > >>
> > >> The code in the Roller trunk, aka Roller 2.0, is stable and has been
> > >> running in production
> > >> at multiple sites for over a week now. There are no issues open
> > >> against this release,
> > >> so I propose that we release this code at Java.Net now as:
> > >>
> > >>     "Roller 2.0 (Incubating)"
> > >>
> > >> The release will be made up of three files.
> > >>
> > >>       roller-2.0-incubating.tar.gz - the complete Roller webapp
> > >>       roller-2.0-incubating-src.tar.gz - Roller source code
> > >>       roller-2.0-incubating-tools.tar.gz - the jars required to
> > >> build  from source
> > >>
> > >> According to the incubator docs:
> > >> <http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/
> > >> Incubation_Policy.html#Releases%0D>
> > >> We need the endorsement of a mentor and the approval of the
> > >> Incubator   PMC.
> > >> So mentors, please advise.
> > >>
> > >> - Dave
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> -- Allen
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 06:27, Dave Johnson wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Some of us are about to start post-2.0 work, and, in fact, I've
> > >>>> already
> > >>>> got some changes to support the Atom protocol that I don't want to
> > >>>> commit to 2.0.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So, it's not part of the Roller release plan, but I think we need a
> > >>>> roller_2.0 branch
> > >>>> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=RollerReleasePlan
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The purpose of the branch would be to make the final preparations for
> > >>>> Roller 2.0 release. Once 2.0 is released, we'd merge roller_2.0 to
> > >>>> trunk and we'd copy roller_2.0 to tags.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Any comments/concerns?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - Dave
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to