On 3/10/06, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
>
> > That says the "Alpha" label cannot be applied to a release without a
> > vote. Before that, it's only a 'proposed release'. (The notion of
> > 'test build' is not in the bylaws.) It also
On 3/10/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 3/9/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We need to fix /releases.html, which is inconsistent with recent
> > history and sentiment. :)
> >
> > " The test build can be posted to the internal distribution directory
> > (svn.apache.or
On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
That says the "Alpha" label cannot be applied to a release without a
vote. Before that, it's only a 'proposed release'. (The notion of
'test build' is not in the bylaws.) It also says that alpha releases
can be distributed.
I think "proposed r
On 3/9/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are you bringing this up now? This is a rehash of a discussion we had
> years ago. The first announcement of a Test Build was sent to the user list
> in February 2004, over two years ago. I'm not aware of problems over the
> last two years t
On 3/9/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need to fix /releases.html, which is inconsistent with recent
> history and sentiment. :)
>
> " The test build can be posted to the internal distribution directory
> (svn.apache.org/struts/) and announced to the Struts DEV and PMC lists
> (only
If I remember correctly, Tomcat announces each release publically and calls
them "alpha" before GA. I think Ted has a good point, but I don't want
to quibble over "alpha" or "test" since, as Wendy pointed out,
it is a release. As long as the user list knows it's not an official
version, which was M
On 3/9/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Martin.
Me, too.
We need to fix /releases.html, which is inconsistent with recent
history and sentiment. :)
" The test build can be posted to the internal distribution directory
(svn.apache.org/struts/) and announced to the St
I agree with Martin.
Niall
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 1:33 AM
On 3/9/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 3/9/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I do agree that we should make sure people underst
On 3/9/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 3/9/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I do agree that we should make sure people understand that it's not a
> > release, but I don't think we need to assume that the user@ audience is
> too
> > dumb to recognise the distinction
On 3/9/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, but I'm going to keep quoting the bylaws until I understand how
> this works.
>
> " After a proposed release is built, it must be tested and classified
> before being released to the general public. The proposed release may
> be assigned "A
On 3/9/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we are going to announce unsanctioned builds to user@, then,
> please, let's at least call them *ALPHA* builds, so that these
> unilateral "trial balloons" are not confused with an actual beta
> release, approved by the PMC.
Sorry, but I'm goi
On 3/9/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do agree that we should make sure people understand that it's not a
> release, but I don't think we need to assume that the user@ audience is too
> dumb to recognise the distinction between a Test Build and a Release.
I wouldn't use the word
On 3/9/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would agree that we don't need to vote on Release Plans that have
> been maintained for three or more days in plain sight on the wiki.
>
> But, I would suggest that we not announce "test builds" to the user
> list until the distribution has pas
I would agree that we don't need to vote on Release Plans that have
been maintained for three or more days in plain sight on the wiki.
But, I would suggest that we not announce "test builds" to the user
list until the distribution has passed a qualty vote and earned a beta
or GA designation.
An a
On 3/6/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Having volunteered as release manager Struts Action 1.3.1, I'm reading
> the instructions. :)
>
> The bylaws [1] say that release plans must be announced on the dev
> list and that each issue is decided by lazy majority.
Right. In the old days
Sounds OK to me - the voting on plans seems to have been a recent addition.
I have something almost ready for Bug 38749 - which is in extras. I guess
from this, thats not affected as this is action only?
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38749
Niall
- Original Message -
16 matches
Mail list logo
