You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> on 2020/02/06 15:45:59 UTC
Re: [VOTE] [OT] Release Apache Tomcat 10.0.0.0-M1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 2/6/20 10:35 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On February 6, 2020 3:10:16 PM UTC, Christopher Schultz
> <ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Konstantin,
>>
>> On 2/6/20 7:36 AM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
>>> Thus far my vote is
>>>
>>> The proposed 10.0.0.0-M1 release is: [x] Broken - do not
>>> release
>>>
>>> because of the numbering scheme.
>>
>> Please remember:
>>
>> 1. The transitional version numbering scheme *is* completely
>> confusing
>>
>> 2. The target version numbering scheme is VERY consistent, and a
>> good idea IMO
>>
>> 3. The transitional version numbering scheme will be retired
>> ASAP
>>
>> Please consider changing your -1 release-veto vote.
>
> For the record, this is not a veto. Release votes may not be
> vetoed.
Fair enough, but generally speaking, any -1s on release-vote are taken
with a lot of weight around here, as you very well know. I'd prefer
not to release in conflict with *any* objections if it's possible.
> As release manager I'm not adverse to a *slight* delay in this
> release if we appear to be heading towards a modified consensus.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - https://www.enigmail.net/
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEMmKgYcQvxMe7tcJcHPApP6U8pFgFAl48NLYACgkQHPApP6U8
pFggdg/+Jqi6DsoXqXQdHCR5TrXTlUIJpgUlSwiTRH+ArGxZqb0V4O5Nb9Y1qL8t
4NRY8fcrGy1OEra7YRm9WakBbQ3FXkiq+/cng8NzMYkXDz+8MsXOevgarUdJgr/C
CZF9+xXQ/ZxNec4FO1+KN8ocUVB87irSY/uJ/QSpbifca9VofFwfUh3ITeUBSO8J
FfpyoJCxIhy66MBW/LNIvedkeFbJGVMcxnwn+IIRtXiMWrp68SxnUth68ySWx7l2
lpOH2y5LofgDWWaPE4CQZiOOGI7vEZaIWOJB0RjrcUT4CtFGKBvrrVLuiFlhnqRy
j8fvysNRuSzYVx8PPoL6hB93DnVXZtZxXgdJxFgcZZLaZMP/rWsLswXsr0TDlqKL
EWUA1IBMnbRAJ2FLoqG9cvBirKOCVlIuj9OW9KkGFXVyBZuEk0+A/vGn3UAlSOA+
7NsvydY2sNcuhy+85i6ljnDyIarzD9Wdly3g7egUpMaZaCLce77856Hpx1ExsKY3
6ojyAD/ObtuIjfDVY+XabKwoshJXYEPoZri6HjoaCMpZatpxKP4o7QURd5snV9Dk
msb1vMZ7yAsr8ZMPY3UEJAYRq+HttcSg0kVHdV3pDJtI4dyl/ZCemSupI0VDGv8y
pY+P6TDkurK94a627Qq1FKBNiLo+g3UJdwg9KTMa6JU9xxgTEmQ=
=FFfY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] [OT] Release Apache Tomcat 10.0.0.0-M1
Posted by Rémy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 4:46 PM Christopher Schultz <
chris@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Mark,
>
> On 2/6/20 10:35 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > On February 6, 2020 3:10:16 PM UTC, Christopher Schultz
> > <ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
> >>
> >> Konstantin,
> >>
> >> On 2/6/20 7:36 AM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> >>> Thus far my vote is
> >>>
> >>> The proposed 10.0.0.0-M1 release is: [x] Broken - do not
> >>> release
> >>>
> >>> because of the numbering scheme.
> >>
> >> Please remember:
> >>
> >> 1. The transitional version numbering scheme *is* completely
> >> confusing
> >>
> >> 2. The target version numbering scheme is VERY consistent, and a
> >> good idea IMO
> >>
> >> 3. The transitional version numbering scheme will be retired
> >> ASAP
> >>
> >> Please consider changing your -1 release-veto vote.
> >
> > For the record, this is not a veto. Release votes may not be
> > vetoed.
>
> Fair enough, but generally speaking, any -1s on release-vote are taken
> with a lot of weight around here, as you very well know. I'd prefer
> not to release in conflict with *any* objections if it's possible.
>
:)
It's hard to come up with something decent for a temporary branch like this
one, right now I don't have any better ideas. Obviously there's going to be
some ongoing confusion caused by this Jakarta renaming ...
I think there are only two real options:
a) release stable with a weird number or something indicating this isn't a
real Tomcat release and it will go away soonish
b) stay in M mode until Jakarta EE 10
I prefer a) since we don't know how long it will take until Jakarta EE 10,
and it will make early Jakarta EE adopters happier. It would be a shame to
see people drop Tomcat simply because we decided to not release for
relatively trivial reasons.
Rémy
>
> > As release manager I'm not adverse to a *slight* delay in this
> > release if we appear to be heading towards a modified consensus.
>
> - -chris
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - https://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEMmKgYcQvxMe7tcJcHPApP6U8pFgFAl48NLYACgkQHPApP6U8
> pFggdg/+Jqi6DsoXqXQdHCR5TrXTlUIJpgUlSwiTRH+ArGxZqb0V4O5Nb9Y1qL8t
> 4NRY8fcrGy1OEra7YRm9WakBbQ3FXkiq+/cng8NzMYkXDz+8MsXOevgarUdJgr/C
> CZF9+xXQ/ZxNec4FO1+KN8ocUVB87irSY/uJ/QSpbifca9VofFwfUh3ITeUBSO8J
> FfpyoJCxIhy66MBW/LNIvedkeFbJGVMcxnwn+IIRtXiMWrp68SxnUth68ySWx7l2
> lpOH2y5LofgDWWaPE4CQZiOOGI7vEZaIWOJB0RjrcUT4CtFGKBvrrVLuiFlhnqRy
> j8fvysNRuSzYVx8PPoL6hB93DnVXZtZxXgdJxFgcZZLaZMP/rWsLswXsr0TDlqKL
> EWUA1IBMnbRAJ2FLoqG9cvBirKOCVlIuj9OW9KkGFXVyBZuEk0+A/vGn3UAlSOA+
> 7NsvydY2sNcuhy+85i6ljnDyIarzD9Wdly3g7egUpMaZaCLce77856Hpx1ExsKY3
> 6ojyAD/ObtuIjfDVY+XabKwoshJXYEPoZri6HjoaCMpZatpxKP4o7QURd5snV9Dk
> msb1vMZ7yAsr8ZMPY3UEJAYRq+HttcSg0kVHdV3pDJtI4dyl/ZCemSupI0VDGv8y
> pY+P6TDkurK94a627Qq1FKBNiLo+g3UJdwg9KTMa6JU9xxgTEmQ=
> =FFfY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>