You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to java-commits@lucene.apache.org by Apache Wiki <wi...@apache.org> on 2010/09/20 18:52:19 UTC
[Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Lucene-java Wiki" for change notification.
The "ReleaseTodo" page has been changed by YonikSeeley.
The comment on this change is: add same disclaimer that the solr release howto has, before anyone this this is iron-clad or has been voted on..
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo?action=diff&rev1=79&rev2=80
--------------------------------------------------
- ''Note: You need committer rights to create a new Lucene release.''
+ This page is to help a Lucene/Solr committer create a new release (you need committer rights for some of the steps to create an official release). It does not reflect official release policy - many of the items may be optional, or may be modified as necessary.
= Release Process =
With the release of Lucene Java 2.2.0 a new release process was established. Prior to every major release a feature freeze phase takes place for about 1-2 weeks. At the beginning of the feature freeze the trunk is branched and no commits other than serious bug fixes, documentation or build updates are permitted. This period of time should be used for extensive testing, documentation improvements and for cleaning up old JIRA issues.
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Chris Hostetter
<ho...@fucit.org>wrote:
>
> Likewise: If i feel like releases should always include a picture of a
> monkey holding the New York times on the day the release is made, then i
> should contribute a patch that causes the build to generate a picture of a
> monkey holding the new york times automaticly when the build is run, so we
> don't have to remember to do it at release time.
>
>
man, given the heated discussion on this issue, it had to be done
Index: build.xml
===================================================================
--- build.xml (revision 999427)
+++ build.xml (working copy)
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
<target name="compile" description="Compile Lucene and Solr">
<sequential>
+ <splash imageurl="http://bit.ly/dhoj5W"/>
<subant target="compile" inheritall="false" failonerror="true">
<fileset dir="lucene" includes="build.xml" />
<fileset dir="modules" includes="build.xml" />
--
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by
YonikSeeley
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
: correct me if I'm wrong) to presume that you are saying that it is
: alright for the RM to decide what artifacts should be released. So, if
: that's not the case, then fine, I agree, but if it is, then no, I don't
: think this is the right message to put on the page. And it certainly
I haven't seen anyone even remotely claim that. the The RM most certainly
gets to decide what *they* think should be released -- but it is the PMC
that gets to decide what *will* be released, and the PMC decides by voting
on it.
RM is just a label for someone who posts a file online somewhere, signs
it, and calls a vote -- they don't have to be a commiter, they don't have
to be a PMC member, they don't have to be building off of any specific
branch, they don't have to organize their files in any particular way --
all that matters is that they say "here's some stuff, i think we should
release it as Apache Foooooo 4.5.6.3.121_a" and it's up to the PMC to say
"we're not ging to vote in favor of releasing that, it's just a zip file
containing a foo.java file thta doesn't compile because it's just an
ascii art picture of a monkey."
It's largely meaningless to try and argue that there should be a hard and
fast formally voted on process for how we do a release, because a
volunteer release manager can't be legally bound to follow that process --
they can just say "screw you guys, this is a pain in the ass i'm going
home to do something fun with my time".
It's likewise largely meaningless to try and argue that there should be a
hard and fast formally voted on set of requirements for what must
constitute a release candidate -- because no matter what the PMC might
vote on as far as what those rules should be, they would be irrelevant
once an actual release vote was called (ie: if PMC feels that all releases
need to include a picture of a monkey, you don't need to vote on that as a
formal rule - you just need to vote against any release that doesn't
include a picture of a monkey)
Instead of spending a lot of time arguing over what type of formal process
should be involved, and what is mandatory or not, and how to make
mandatory things formally mandatory, etc.... it would probably be more
productive if folks who have strong opinions about what is important to
produce as part of a release just focused on making it easier to do
releases that produce those things.
For example...
Robert feels strongly that releases should always be well tested for many
langauges/locales/jvms (+1), so he's been working his ass off to
contribute patches that make sure we have an automated way to test these
things so we don't have to think hard about them at release time. (++1)
If other people feel like releases should always have rock solid support
for maven users to consume release artifacts that have accurate poms, then
they should contribute patches that make sure we have an automated way to
generate/publish those artifacts so we don't have to think hard about them
at release time.
Likewise: If i feel like releases should always include a picture of a
monkey holding the New York times on the day the release is made, then i
should contribute a patch that causes the build to generate a picture of a
monkey holding the new york times automaticly when the build is run, so we
don't have to remember to do it at release time.
If any of the various goals conflict (ie: if grant doesn't want to vote in
favor of a release because my picture of a monkey doesn't have a pom so
it's not useable for maven users; or if robert doesn't want to vote in
favor of a release that includes pom's because there are no tests
verifying that those poms are usable) then let's argue about those
specific, individual, seperate, points in a way that leads towards patches
and automation and simplification of process -- Let's try to avoid arguing
about formal rules and regulations that just lead to us having formal
rules and regulations with no actual implementation or technical solution
to make those rules/regulations a reality.
-Hoss
--
http://lucenerevolution.org/ ... October 7-8, Boston
http://bit.ly/stump-hoss ... Stump The Chump!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Sep 20, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>>> I am also re-asserting (as I have asserted in the past) that the Maven
>>> artifacts are *optional*.
>>> We've discussed maven not being mandatory before:
>>> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/bd618c89a4d458dc/lucene_2_9_again
>>> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/3b98fa9ec3073936
>>>
>>
>> You asserting in previous threads that Maven is optional does not make it optional.
>
> I *think* that's a roundabout way of saying that you do think it's
> mandatory. But you've been unable to point to how it became
> mandatory... and there seems to be a distinct lack of consensus over
> it. Certainly makes it sound optional.
Well, given that we have been doing it since Lucene _1.2_ (Nov. 2005, http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/lucene/lucene/) for every single release we do (both Lucene and Solr), I would say it is a feature our users expect. Does that make it mandatory? Technically no. Does that mean some RM gets to choose to do it at their discretion b/c they don't feel like it without consulting the community? I don't think that is right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> I am also re-asserting (as I have asserted in the past) that the Maven
>> artifacts are *optional*.
>> We've discussed maven not being mandatory before:
>> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/bd618c89a4d458dc/lucene_2_9_again
>> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/3b98fa9ec3073936
>>
>
> You asserting in previous threads that Maven is optional does not make it optional.
I *think* that's a roundabout way of saying that you do think it's
mandatory. But you've been unable to point to how it became
mandatory... and there seems to be a distinct lack of consensus over
it. Certainly makes it sound optional.
-Yonik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Sep 20, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 20, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> While, yes, I will agree it is not official, it is the de facto standard by which we have done releases and RM's have always worked to it.
>>>
>>> I'd wager that there has never been a single lucene or solr release
>>> that followed every single instruction to the T. Which means that
>>> people need to use their heads and understand that "many of the items
>>> may be optional, or may be modified as necessary."
>>>
>>> You can't point at the guide as a *reason* to do something, only *how*
>>> to do something. If I knew someone would point to it and say "you
>>> must do XYZ because it's on that HOWTO" then I would have vetoed most
>>> changes to that page.
>>
>> As I have said for the 3rd time, of course I get that people need to be flexible and there has always been an implied "use your head". But, as I said, given you wrote it on the heels of the discussion around Maven and that you think we shouldn't publish Maven artifacts, I think it is clear you intend it to imply that the RM gets to chose what artifacts are released. Is that not the case?
>
> IMO, the RM has no more power than any other PMC member. But when
> there are a lot of optional things on the list...
Perhaps you should itemize all the items that are optional and then we can mark them as such. Is uploading the artifacts (maven or not) optional? Perhaps next time I do a release I'll just skip that one. Is updating the website? OK, so I'll give you the FreshMeat and the ServerSide posts, etc.
> I guess the
> volunteers doing the work get to decide what parts they want to do.
I'd agree that there are some things that should be optional, especially the post release items. Some things, however, are not. Perhaps we should just list out what we view as being required and which ones are not.
> The PMC as a whole gets to decide to release artifacts or not.
Of course. I don't see how that is relevant to the question I asked.
>
> I am also re-asserting (as I have asserted in the past) that the Maven
> artifacts are *optional*.
> We've discussed maven not being mandatory before:
> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/bd618c89a4d458dc/lucene_2_9_again
> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/3b98fa9ec3073936
>
You asserting in previous threads that Maven is optional does not make it optional. AFAICT, we have done them for as long as we have said we would do them. I'm fine with us as a community dropping Maven releases if that is what is decided. I am absolutely not fine with the RM deciding to drop them based on what he feels like doing as part of that release. If you don't have time to do the required items, then you shouldn't be an RM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Sep 20, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Sep 20, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> While, yes, I will agree it is not official, it is the de facto standard by which we have done releases and RM's have always worked to it.
>>
>> I'd wager that there has never been a single lucene or solr release
>> that followed every single instruction to the T. Which means that
>> people need to use their heads and understand that "many of the items
>> may be optional, or may be modified as necessary."
>>
>> You can't point at the guide as a *reason* to do something, only *how*
>> to do something. If I knew someone would point to it and say "you
>> must do XYZ because it's on that HOWTO" then I would have vetoed most
>> changes to that page.
>
> As I have said for the 3rd time, of course I get that people need to be flexible and there has always been an implied "use your head". But, as I said, given you wrote it on the heels of the discussion around Maven and that you think we shouldn't publish Maven artifacts, I think it is clear you intend it to imply that the RM gets to chose what artifacts are released. Is that not the case?
IMO, the RM has no more power than any other PMC member. But when
there are a lot of optional things on the list... I guess the
volunteers doing the work get to decide what parts they want to do.
The PMC as a whole gets to decide to release artifacts or not.
I am also re-asserting (as I have asserted in the past) that the Maven
artifacts are *optional*.
We've discussed maven not being mandatory before:
http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/bd618c89a4d458dc/lucene_2_9_again
http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/3b98fa9ec3073936
-Yonik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Sep 20, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>> While, yes, I will agree it is not official, it is the de facto standard by which we have done releases and RM's have always worked to it.
>
> I'd wager that there has never been a single lucene or solr release
> that followed every single instruction to the T. Which means that
> people need to use their heads and understand that "many of the items
> may be optional, or may be modified as necessary."
>
> You can't point at the guide as a *reason* to do something, only *how*
> to do something. If I knew someone would point to it and say "you
> must do XYZ because it's on that HOWTO" then I would have vetoed most
> changes to that page.
As I have said for the 3rd time, of course I get that people need to be flexible and there has always been an implied "use your head". But, as I said, given you wrote it on the heels of the discussion around Maven and that you think we shouldn't publish Maven artifacts, I think it is clear you intend it to imply that the RM gets to chose what artifacts are released. Is that not the case?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> While, yes, I will agree it is not official, it is the de facto standard by which we have done releases and RM's have always worked to it.
I'd wager that there has never been a single lucene or solr release
that followed every single instruction to the T. Which means that
people need to use their heads and understand that "many of the items
may be optional, or may be modified as necessary."
You can't point at the guide as a *reason* to do something, only *how*
to do something. If I knew someone would point to it and say "you
must do XYZ because it's on that HOWTO" then I would have vetoed most
changes to that page.
-Yonik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Sep 20, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>> And it certainly isn't up to you alone to decide by placing it on the Wiki as a "trivial" update.
>
> Most of the updates to that page were made w/o consensus, just as mine
> was.
You know there is a difference. In the past, updates were made to the steps involved and subsequent RM's went and followed them or improved them. Your update was to say throw all that work out, if you so desire, and do what you want. While, yes, I will agree it is not official, it is the de facto standard by which we have done releases and RM's have always worked to it. So, yes, we can argue the semantics of a wiki page, but the intent of that page, IMO, is that the RM follow it and that has, AFAICT, always been how RMs have acted when doing releases.
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> And it certainly isn't up to you alone to decide by placing it on the Wiki as a "trivial" update.
Most of the updates to that page were made w/o consensus, just as mine
was. It's a guide - nothing more.
Again, if you feel differently, point to where we voted on that as
official policy, or call a vote to make it official policy.
-Yonik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Sep 20, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>>> It does not list iron-clad requirements - it is there simply to help.
>>
>> Again, I disagree. Having done a number of releases, it would simply be impossible without it
>
> Usefulness certainly does not imply "officialness" and certainly does
> not imply that everything on there is mandatory.
> We've never needed anything quote so iron-clad in the past - we were
> able to use our judgments to adapt as necessary. And individuals went
> and updated that page with helpful things because no one was under the
> impression that anything there was binding.
>
Of course it makes sense for it to be updatable to reflect that things change, servers get moved, ant targets get improved, but your message, on the heels of the Maven discussion, was interpreted by me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) to presume that you are saying that it is alright for the RM to decide what artifacts should be released. So, if that's not the case, then fine, I agree, but if it is, then no, I don't think this is the right message to put on the page. And it certainly isn't up to you alone to decide by placing it on the Wiki as a "trivial" update.
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> It does not list iron-clad requirements - it is there simply to help.
>
> Again, I disagree. Having done a number of releases, it would simply be impossible without it
Usefulness certainly does not imply "officialness" and certainly does
not imply that everything on there is mandatory.
We've never needed anything quote so iron-clad in the past - we were
able to use our judgments to adapt as necessary. And individuals went
and updated that page with helpful things because no one was under the
impression that anything there was binding.
-Yonik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Sep 20, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>> - ''Note: You need committer rights to create a new Lucene release.''
>> + This page is to help a Lucene/Solr committer create a new release (you
>> need committer rights for some of the steps to create an official release).
>> It does not reflect official release policy - many of the items may be
>> optional, or may be modified as necessary.
>>
>> I think putting this up on the wiki is a bad idea. We should strive to have
>> a repeatable release process. By saying it is up to the person who happens
>> to be doing the release is just asking for less quality in our releases. If
>> you don't think you can follow the release process, then you shouldn't be
>> doing the release. And, if we as a community can't define a repeatable
>> release process, then we shouldn't have a release either.
>
> Calling something that anyone can go and edit and add their best ideas
> to "official" is silly.
Fine, let's lock it down then.
> It does not list iron-clad requirements - it is there simply to help.
Again, I disagree. Having done a number of releases, it would simply be impossible without it, no matter how long the list is. Unless, of course, all you want is the release to be the source, but even that is in doubt b/c how would I know where to upload it to? For instance, how do you know which Ant target really gets you the right thing to distribute?
> That's pretty obvious by looking at the huge list of content on that
> page. I'd rather spend my time writing code and improving the
> projects rather than engaging in bureaucratic exercises.
Well, part of an "improved" projects is a release that people can consistently rely on. If there is too much chaff in the current release, fine, let's get rid of it or automate it. However, to suggest that a written out release process is not needed or is subject to whatever the RM wants is just plain ludicrous. Are you really arguing that we, the writers of a massively used and deployed open source library, should have a release process that is subject to the whims of whoever happens to be doing it on that given day? Regardless as to whether you want to or not, we as a community need to make sure the community can rely on the results of us writing the code.
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
sounds like we might need to create an official release policy, vote on it,
and commit it.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > - ''Note: You need committer rights to create a new Lucene release.''
> > + This page is to help a Lucene/Solr committer create a new release (you
> > need committer rights for some of the steps to create an official
> release).
> > It does not reflect official release policy - many of the items may be
> > optional, or may be modified as necessary.
> >
> > I think putting this up on the wiki is a bad idea. We should strive to
> have
> > a repeatable release process. By saying it is up to the person who
> happens
> > to be doing the release is just asking for less quality in our releases.
> If
> > you don't think you can follow the release process, then you shouldn't be
> > doing the release. And, if we as a community can't define a repeatable
> > release process, then we shouldn't have a release either.
>
> Calling something that anyone can go and edit and add their best ideas
> to "official" is silly.
> It does not list iron-clad requirements - it is there simply to help.
> That's pretty obvious by looking at the huge list of content on that
> page. I'd rather spend my time writing code and improving the
> projects rather than engaging in bureaucratic exercises.
>
> -Yonik
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com
Re: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> - ''Note: You need committer rights to create a new Lucene release.''
> + This page is to help a Lucene/Solr committer create a new release (you
> need committer rights for some of the steps to create an official release).
> It does not reflect official release policy - many of the items may be
> optional, or may be modified as necessary.
>
> I think putting this up on the wiki is a bad idea. We should strive to have
> a repeatable release process. By saying it is up to the person who happens
> to be doing the release is just asking for less quality in our releases. If
> you don't think you can follow the release process, then you shouldn't be
> doing the release. And, if we as a community can't define a repeatable
> release process, then we shouldn't have a release either.
Calling something that anyone can go and edit and add their best ideas
to "official" is silly.
It does not list iron-clad requirements - it is there simply to help.
That's pretty obvious by looking at the huge list of content on that
page. I'd rather spend my time writing code and improving the
projects rather than engaging in bureaucratic exercises.
-Yonik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Fwd: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Apache Wiki <wi...@apache.org>
> Date: September 20, 2010 12:52:19 PM EDT
> To: Apache Wiki <wi...@apache.org>
> Subject: [Lucene-java Wiki] Trivial Update of "ReleaseTodo" by YonikSeeley
> Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> Dear Wiki user,
>
> You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Lucene-java Wiki" for change notification.
>
> The "ReleaseTodo" page has been changed by YonikSeeley.
> The comment on this change is: add same disclaimer that the solr release howto has, before anyone this this is iron-clad or has been voted on..
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo?action=diff&rev1=79&rev2=80
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> - ''Note: You need committer rights to create a new Lucene release.''
> + This page is to help a Lucene/Solr committer create a new release (you need committer rights for some of the steps to create an official release). It does not reflect official release policy - many of the items may be optional, or may be modified as necessary.
I think putting this up on the wiki is a bad idea. We should strive to have a repeatable release process. By saying it is up to the person who happens to be doing the release is just asking for less quality in our releases. If you don't think you can follow the release process, then you shouldn't be doing the release. And, if we as a community can't define a repeatable release process, then we shouldn't have a release either.
-Grant