The review of the current release candidate has generated lots of feedback, as individuals compared the distributions to various criteria. While we incorporate this feedback into the current release, we should also take some time and document a process that captures all the release criteria implicit in these evaluations. To summarize so far, we have assessed against the following criteria:
1) Instructions to produce a build are correct 2) Documentation compiles correctly 3) All source files contributed to Apache comply with license requirements 4) Samples all run from simply dropping the samples directory into an HTTP server. All samples can be accessed from the index.html file in the /samples directory 5) All documentation, whether hosted or part of the distribution, is accessible from the index.html file in the /docs directory 6) The readme is included with links to the project homepage, instructions to run the samples, instructions to veiw defects resolved, and new improvements since the last release. I'm sure there are other criteria. The incubator recommended reviewing the HTTPD, Jakarta Commons, and Struts release processes for examples: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases/index.html http://struts.apache.org/releases.html Release guides from two other incubator projects: http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/release-guide.html http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/release-guide.html Two other top level project release processes/criteria http://wiki.apache.org/beehive/V1ReleaseCriteria http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReleasePolicy I propose that we create a XAP release guide in the XAP wiki, so that future releases will go smoother. -Scott Boyd
