On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote:
Hi,
The important release artifact to check is the source archive, the
binary artifacts are mostly a convenience to users.
The binaries are irrelevant.
OK, I understand, but I don't agree. Most users download the binaries;
very few downl
Hi,
> The important release artifact to check is the source archive, the
> binary artifacts are mostly a convenience to users.
> The binaries are irrelevant.
OK, I understand, but I don't agree. Most users download the binaries;
very few download the source code and even less build the binaries
On Apr 20, 2008, at 6:03 AM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
I have a growing concern about our latest releases. Most of the
time we
barely get the required minimum of 3 +1 votes to release the stuff.
Take
as an example some recent release vote results:
* Jackrabbit 1.3.4 - 3 votes
* jackrab
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a growing concern about our latest releases. Most of the time we
> barely get the required minimum of 3 +1 votes to release the stuff.
Agreed. Luckily we haven't seen any release votes that could not pass
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Thomas Mueller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reason that I don't vote very often is because I am not very
> comfortable with it.
>
> I would like to make sure the jar files reflect the source code in the
> branch. I would need to compile the source code
Hi,
The reason that I don't vote very often is because I am not very
comfortable with it.
I would like to make sure the jar files reflect the source code in the
branch. I would need to compile the source code myself using the same
compiler (JVM) and compare the jar files in binary mode. It would
Hi all,
I have a growing concern about our latest releases. Most of the time we
barely get the required minimum of 3 +1 votes to release the stuff. Take
as an example some recent release vote results:
* Jackrabbit 1.3.4 - 3 votes
* jackrabbit-core 1.4.2 - 4 votes (of which 1 non-binding)
