no issue found on my build -D
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I didn't get much response yesterday and we respun a new RC (RC6) so I'm > resending the original mail. If nothing turns up within 3 days, then we > will restage and vote for a release. > > > > Thanks, > > Brian > > > > --------------------------------------- > > > > In an attempt to raise quality and reduce/eliminate regressions in the > core releases, we are experimenting with a new release process. The old > process had a few informal staged builds followed by one or more > official staged builds that where voted on. Clearly this didn't attract > enough testing prior to the official release to identify regressions or > other major issues. > > > > The new process we are using for the 2.0.9 release is to cut actual > release candidate (RCx) releases. These are released with the normal > release process so it generates a tag, but do not get sync'd to central. > We have gone through several RCs[1] as we tested on the dev@ list. The > next step is to open it up to the user list for fix validation and > regression identification. This is really the first time we've followed > such a process so we'll have to see how it pans out. > > > > Here are the "operating parameters" for this test: > > > > * The goal of the RCs are to stabilize the release and any changes at > this point naturally risks further regressions. Therefore, the list of > fixes for 2.0.9 is locked. We will not be including any more fixes at > this point unless it meets the requirements laid out below. This means > please don't reply with "could you just include xyz". > > > > * The issues we are looking to identify and fix are those where it can > be shown to work with 2.0.8, but not with 2.0.9-RCxxx. These issues we > will almost certainly fix. Our goal is to fix ALL regressions identified > between 2.0.8 and 2.0.9, but naturally we need to weigh the severity of > the issue along with the exposure against the complexity and risk of > further regressions by fixing it. > > > > * If any of the issues that are marked as fixed for 2.0.9 are found to > not be fixed, then we are interested in this as well, but more likely > than not the fix will be rolled back and rescheduled for 2.0.10. > Naturally the importance of the issue has bearing in how this will be > handled. > > > > * If we can receive a sample project or IT[2] showing the issue, then > it increases the likelihood of a quick fix and turnaround of the RC > exponentially, both for regressions and for "not fixed" issues in 2.0.9 > > > > * Please report any regressions found between earlier versions of > 2.0.x and 2.0.9 as they will be prioritized for 2.0.10 along with > anything rolled back / not fixed from 2.0.9 > > > > * We will continue to iterate through this process until we feel that > the release is ready to go. User list input will have a large factor in > making this decision. That said, the quality of the 2.0.9 release will > depend on the level of involvement from the entire community to test, > reproduce and report issues identified. > > > > * Please file a Jira[3] for anything you find, and then reply to the > RC thread with the details and issue number so that others may see and > reduce duplicate reports. We will be watching Jira closely for reports > with 2.0.9 in the affected version. > > > > * Once a release is ready, we will rebuild and restage the code from > the most recent RC for a formal vote. This will produce the official > "2.0.9" release. > > > > The list of issues fixed for this release can be found here: > > http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13801&styleName > =Html&projectId=10500&Create=Create > > > > Some notable changes are: > > * Plugin versions are locked in the superpom. (MNG-3395) You can see > the locked versions here: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/branches/maven-2.0.x/ma > ven-project/src/main/resources/org/apache/maven/project/pom-4.0.0.xml > > > > * In most cases they are locked to the currently available plugin to > avoid suddenly downgrading users that haven't locked their own versions > (still the best practice). > > > > * Webdav is included in the core, meaning you can deploy:deploy-file > without a pom to include the extension (if you use webdav obviously) > (MNG-2664) > > > > * New syntax for mirror definitions. Details here: MNG-3461 > > > > * Introduction of Import scope: (MNG-3220) > > http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-m > echanism.html#Importing_Dependencies > > > > > > The binaries for this RC can be found here: > > http://people.apache.org/~brianf/staging-repository/org/apache/maven/apa > che-maven/ > > (naturally take the highest RC number deployed as it will change when we > iterate) > > > > [1] Previous RC threads: > > > http://www.nabble.com/-Pre-Vote--release-maven-2.0.9-td16124759s177.html > > http://www.nabble.com/-pre-vote-take-3--2.0.9-RC3-td16314473s177.html > > http://www.nabble.com/-2.0.9-RC4--td16344067s177.html > > http://www.nabble.com/-2.0.9-RC5--td16365465s177.html#a16365465 > > > > [2] Creating a Core IT: > > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Creating+a+Maven+Integration+Test > > > > [3] http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG > > > > > > Thanks, > > The Maven Team > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
