--On January 19, 2006 4:29:33 PM -0700 Martin Sebor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If there is an easy way to rename a branch I suppose we could start
with a 1.2.3-not-an-official-release-yet (or whatever) branch and,
once the release is approved, rename it to 1.2.3.
svn mv tags/1.2.3-not-an-official-release-yet tags/1.2.3
Again, my take is that a release candidate is not a good idea; instead, I
feel you should just burn the number. But, if you insist on a rc process,
some ASF projects have done that with varying measure of success.
But I feel that this seems like going too far. I have been following
several open source projects for years (e.g., gcc, glibc, GNU make,
STLport) but this is the first time I've ever even heard of this
policy. Do you know of any projects outside the ASF that use it? If
not, I wonder what it is about the ASF that makes us different from
the other open source projects and that requires us to adopt such
an unconventional policy.
The critical point of the ASF's release policy is that there are at least
three PMC members voting +1 and that there are more positive than negative
votes. A RM will create a release individually, but in order to distribute
the release and call it Apache XYZ, it needs the approval of the PMC (as
denoted by their votes). The specifics of how each project gets to that is
up to each PMC.
The concern I had with your earlier comments was altering the source,
assuming all of the prior votes counted, and not having any identification
to know that the source had changed. That's dangerous behavior because it
facilitates confusion over what we're all voting on and what users will
download. -- justin
