+1
dain
On Dec 20, 2006, at 11:55 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
I hereby propose we release this branch as final.
Here's my +1
-David
Binaries and source code look good. +1
--kevan
On Dec 21, 2006, at 2:55 AM, David Blevins wrote:
Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
I hereby propose we release this
.
--jason
-Original Message-
From: Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:09:37
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
I think the SVN number would be needed as many times there are minor
tweaks...a base SVN number would provide
Looks good +1
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
I would imagine that a branch which is ready to be released would be
quiessed and so there would be no need for an svn rev # or am I
missing something?
Regards,
Alan
On Dec 21, 2006, at 3:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED
and not actually get
the same result artifacts when building.
--jason
-Original Message-
From: Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:09:37
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
I think the SVN number would be needed as many
The problem is that comments at the top of the pom are lost
when releasing.
The workaround is to move the comments (ASF header)
down into the project tag.
I have just done that for xbean, and it works nicely:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/xbean/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup
and the tagged
, that with a
tag ensures that code for that exact release can always be found
at a later time.
--jason
-Original Message-
From: Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:10:46
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
On Dec 21, 2006, at 4
+1
Jacek
On 12/21/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
I hereby propose we release this branch as final.
Here's my +1
-David
+1
David Blevins wrote:
Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
I hereby propose we release this branch as final.
Here's my +1
-David
I'm not sure I understand this vote. BAsed on passed precedent we
generally vote on a set of binaries and not a source tree. I think
Dain offered to own releasing specs so will he be producing a set of
binaries to vote on? Voting on an SVN branch is a new twist for me :)
I'm happy to
Matt has got a point. Voting on an svn branch is new.
--vamsi
On 12/21/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this vote. BAsed on passed precedent we
generally vote on a set of binaries and not a source tree. I think
Dain offered to own releasing specs so will
I think David is treating the branch as somewhat official and is
bringing the community into it...nothing wrong with a healthy vote.
I suggest we head off what looks like may be turning into a bike shed
thread. ;-)
Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
Matt has got a point. Voting on an svn branch is
On Dec 21, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I think David is treating the branch as somewhat official and is
bringing the community into it...nothing wrong with a healthy vote.
I suggest we head off what looks like may be turning into a bike
shed
thread. ;-)
Not my intent. I'd
On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:01 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this vote. BAsed on passed precedent we
generally vote on a set of binaries and not a source tree. I think
Dain offered to own releasing specs so will he be producing a set
of binaries to vote on?
I'm willing
+1
Regards,
Alan
On Dec 20, 2006, at 11:55 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
I hereby propose we release this branch as final.
Here's my +1
On Dec 21, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:01 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this vote. BAsed on passed precedent we
generally vote on a set of binaries and not a source tree. I
think Dain offered to own releasing specs so will he be
On Dec 21, 2006, at 2:01 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this vote. BAsed on passed precedent
we generally vote on a set of binaries and not a source tree. I
think Dain offered to own releasing specs so will he be producing
a set of binaries to vote on?
I'm
On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I think David is treating the branch as somewhat official and is
bringing the community into it...nothing wrong with a healthy vote.
I suggest we head off what looks like may be turning into
On Dec 21, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 2:01 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this vote. BAsed on passed precedent
we generally vote on a set of binaries and not a source tree. I
think Dain offered to own releasing specs so will he
On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:50 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
It was something Roy said recently on Incubator general that
enlightened.
On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
FYI, traditionally, all release votes are for the source code
I think voting on svn source for small projects / jars is good,
because people can build them locally, check that everything
is ok (for legal reasons), and vote. This is much more difficult
for Geronimo server, of course, and may not be applied.
This works well, I think, if the release process
On Dec 21, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:50 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
It was something Roy said recently on Incubator general that
enlightened.
On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
FYI,
Binaries here:
http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/apache/geronimo/
specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/1.0/
On Dec 20, 2006, at 11:55 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
On Dec 21, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I think voting on svn source for small projects / jars is good,
because people can build them locally, check that everything
is ok (for legal reasons), and vote. This is much more difficult
for Geronimo server, of course, and may not be
: Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
On Dec 21, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I think voting on svn source for small projects / jars is good,
because people can build them locally, check that everything
is ok (for legal reasons), and vote. This is much more difficult
ensures that code for that exact release can always be found at a
later time.
--jason
-Original Message-
From: Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:10:46
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
On Dec 21, 2006, at 4:06
IIRC, the maven release plugin did some odd things to the POM; I
recall seeing this in SMX. I recommend that we do a dry run on a
trash release and look at the results to see if we are happy with the
outcome.
Regards,
Alan
On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I think
that code for that exact release can always be found
at a later time.
--jason
-Original Message-
From: Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:10:46
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
On Dec 21, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Guillaume
29 matches
Mail list logo
