+1
Regards,
Hervé
Le samedi 1 juin 2013 09:13:17 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
Here are the release bits for 3.1.0-alpha-1:
Release notes:
https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500version=18
967
Staging repository:
-1 (binding)
Ralph
On May 29, 2013, at 3:01 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
We have been using a policy of only making releases without skipping
version numbers, e.g.
3.0.0, 3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.0.3, 3.0.4, 3.0.5, etc
Whereby if there is something wrong with the artifacts staged for release,
we
-1 binding to changing to burning versions.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
-1 (binding)
Ralph
On May 29, 2013, at 3:01 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
We have been using a policy of only making releases without skipping
version numbers, e.g.
+1
Le dimanche 2 juin 2013, Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit :
+1
Regards,
Hervé
Le samedi 1 juin 2013 09:13:17 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
Here are the release bits for 3.1.0-alpha-1:
Release notes:
https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500version=18
967
Staging
-1 non-binding, this is confusing. That's what RC tags are for.
Gary
On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:54, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
-1 binding to changing to burning versions.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
-1 (binding)
Ralph
On
from my experience, even if this question is not absolutely scm-specific,
git
brings us a new problem we didn't have with svn: once a tag is set on the
canonical repo and replicated on developers' repos, it is not automatically
updated if updated in the canonical
Git brings you no such
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Fred Cooke fred.co...@gmail.com wrote:
from my experience, even if this question is not absolutely scm-specific,
git
brings us a new problem we didn't have with svn: once a tag is set on the
canonical repo and replicated on developers' repos, it is not
Benson, read the rules:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/voting.html
*-1 *No, I *veto* this action.
+1 + -1 != 0
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Fred Cooke fred.co...@gmail.com wrote:
from my experience, even if this
+1.
2013/6/2 Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com
+1
Le dimanche 2 juin 2013, Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit :
+1
Regards,
Hervé
Le samedi 1 juin 2013 09:13:17 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
Here are the release bits for 3.1.0-alpha-1:
Release notes:
That link is for HTTPd.
For Apache general guidelines, read
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
-1 are only vetos for code modification, not procedural issues .
Cheers
2013/6/2 Fred Cooke fred.co...@gmail.com
Benson, read the rules:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/voting.html
*-1
1. That page says 'obsolete' all over the top of it.
2. I can find you 27 email messages from board members and other
crusty veterans to the contrary.
Quoting from the replacement page:
-1 No. On issues where consensus is required, this vote counts as a
veto. All vetos must include an
Thanks, Baptiste, that's the reference I was looking for.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Baptiste MATHUS bmat...@batmat.net wrote:
That link is for HTTPd.
For Apache general guidelines, read
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
-1 are only vetos for code modification, not procedural
I apologise. I had three tabs open from Apache, and grabbed the wrong one.
According to the correct, page, though:
-0.9: 'I *really* don't like this, but *I'm not going to stand in the
way*if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.'
There's an *implication* there that an extra -0.1 might
I will point out that for this specific vote I listed three options and a
criteria. So this vote has no vetoes. Simple sum of all binding votes
defines the result. If the sum is -3 then that says majority dont want to
burn version numbers. If the sum +3 then that says the majority want to
keep
I think it's time to step back a little. This whole vote was started
without any proper initial discussion, so to the extent there will be
any majority for a policy change, this will not be the vote where this
happens. But these votes tend to be great kickstarters for good
discussions, so instead
I would consider it delux if the release plugin were enhanced to
support a more sophisticated mapping between artifact versions and
tags -- as per Kristian, wouldn't it be cool if it could iterate over
tags while repeating itself on customer-visible release numbers? I'd
help to code this is we had
Fred,
We are talking more process here. Not the specifics of an individual SCM,
not everything is in git. We are still talking about the abstraction api
that the maven-scm handlers provide, of which git is but one.
-Chris
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Fred Cooke fred.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Although I prefer to use Git, it's totally irrelevant. I'm unsure how you
came to the conclusion that I thought this was anything to do with Git.
Subversion tags, though mutable, should not EVER be committed against or in
any other way modified. Doing so is the behaviour of a (bad quality) grad
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Fred Cooke fred.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Although I prefer to use Git, it's totally irrelevant. I'm unsure how you
came to the conclusion that I thought this was anything to do with Git.
Subversion tags, though mutable, should not EVER be committed against or in
Fred, you're the one who mentioned git in that post.
Please remember what stephen pointed out (which I thought was rather nicely
worded): [paraphrased]
The real release is the source bundle, and the tags are
merely a convienance to a developer.
-Chris
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Fred Cooke fred.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Although I prefer to use Git, it's totally irrelevant. I'm unsure how you
came to the conclusion that I thought this was anything to do with
Please stop addressing me. I'm done with this thread. The futility is
killing me. I've *MUCH* better things to do with my time. I'm 110% certain
that 101% of you will be pleased by this. Win win.
Fred.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com wrote:
Fred, you're the
22 matches
Mail list logo
