You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org> on 2011/02/09 12:11:08 UTC
Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Hi devs,
I'd like to release the first version of our JUnit Add-ons.
The JUnit Add-ons contain helpers for concurrent unit test that are
used only internally.
Please note that it includes source files copied from [3], licensed
under ALv2. According to [4] the original copyright notice and license
header is unchanged. Attribution has been added to NOTICE and LICENSE
file.
The tag can be found at [1], the staging repository can be found at [2].
I'll continue to release the staging repository after the grace period
of 4 hours.
Kind Regards,
Stefan
[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/buildtools/junit-addons/tags/0.1/
[2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedirectory-046/
[3] http://code.google.com/p/mycila/source/browse/mycila-junit/tags/mycila-junit-1.0.ga/src/main/java/com/mycila/junit/concurrent
[4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
+1
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
On 9 févr. 2011, at 12:11, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> I'd like to release the first version of our JUnit Add-ons.
>
> The JUnit Add-ons contain helpers for concurrent unit test that are
> used only internally.
>
> Please note that it includes source files copied from [3], licensed
> under ALv2. According to [4] the original copyright notice and license
> header is unchanged. Attribution has been added to NOTICE and LICENSE
> file.
>
> The tag can be found at [1], the staging repository can be found at [2].
>
> I'll continue to release the staging repository after the grace period
> of 4 hours.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Stefan
>
>
> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/buildtools/junit-addons/tags/0.1/
> [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedirectory-046/
> [3] http://code.google.com/p/mycila/source/browse/mycila-junit/tags/mycila-junit-1.0.ga/src/main/java/com/mycila/junit/concurrent
> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>.
Done.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> I'd like to release the first version of our JUnit Add-ons.
>
> The JUnit Add-ons contain helpers for concurrent unit test that are
> used only internally.
>
> Please note that it includes source files copied from [3], licensed
> under ALv2. According to [4] the original copyright notice and license
> header is unchanged. Attribution has been added to NOTICE and LICENSE
> file.
>
> The tag can be found at [1], the staging repository can be found at [2].
>
> I'll continue to release the staging repository after the grace period
> of 4 hours.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Stefan
>
>
> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/buildtools/junit-addons/tags/0.1/
> [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedirectory-046/
> [3] http://code.google.com/p/mycila/source/browse/mycila-junit/tags/mycila-junit-1.0.ga/src/main/java/com/mycila/junit/concurrent
> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
<el...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2/10/11 3:26 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<el...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/9/11 8:08 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Stefan Seelmann<se...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Stefan Seelmann<se...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Arnaud
>>>>>> Marcelot<pa...@marcelot.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thinking it twice, yeah, I'm also afraid you're right Alex.
>>>>>>> This vote should probably have needed a longer and more formal vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess the artifacts have already been promoted from Nexus to the
>>>>>>> Maven repository now.
>>>>>>> What should we do about it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I already promoted the artifacts. I'll ask infra if they can stop
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's already in Maven Central, so I guess it's too late:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/directory/junit/junit-addons/0.1/
>>>>
>>>> The world's not going to come to an end. We've learned a lesson and we
>>>> sure will NOT do it again next time. We're also very rushed and things
>>>> like this happen when you rush. We need to relax. We're here to have
>>>> fun, not to feel like we screwed up.
>>>>
>>>> BTW I just saw your last email with apology:
>>>>
>>>> "Ok, I'll prepare the shared release. Sorry for the mess."
>>>>
>>>> I must apologize as well I voted +1 when you asked about this in
>>>> October. Should have paid more attention then. I thought the
>>>> junit-addons like skins (for only our site) and checkstyle (for only
>>>> our project) had no code, just configs or css. Then saw the code being
>>>> copied into it. Anyways I'm sorry I let up my guard. I'll try to be
>>>> harder.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, you are not personally at fault. Don't beat yourself over the
>>>> head. This is a failure of the whole PMC. Let's note what happened,
>>>> rectify and move on. No big deal, everyone had good intentions and
>>>> apparently we were all one way or another misinformed.
>>>>
>>>> It's funny how anal the ASF gets about this stuff and apparently for
>>>> good very reason! See how we slid right into the situation? We were
>>>> all relatively unaware of it happening too. Perhaps this TLP POM
>>>> release expedition procedure opened the door for it.
>>>
>>> Hey, no need to prepare the nails, the whip and the pieces of wood to
>>> crucify someone :)
>>
>> Who am I crucifying exactly? I think I went out my way to make sure we
>> all shared the slip up instead of a single individual, which is in
>> fact the case. These kinds of of comments above do not add any value
>> to the conversation.
>
> No, you got me wrong, or may be I was not clear enough.
OK no problem.
Regards,
Alex
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@apache.org>.
On 2/10/11 3:26 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/9/11 8:08 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Stefan Seelmann<se...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Stefan Seelmann<se...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot<pa...@marcelot.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Thinking it twice, yeah, I'm also afraid you're right Alex.
>>>>>> This vote should probably have needed a longer and more formal vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess the artifacts have already been promoted from Nexus to the
>>>>>> Maven repository now.
>>>>>> What should we do about it?
>>>>> Yes, I already promoted the artifacts. I'll ask infra if they can stop
>>>>> it.
>>>> It's already in Maven Central, so I guess it's too late:
>>>>
>>>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/directory/junit/junit-addons/0.1/
>>> The world's not going to come to an end. We've learned a lesson and we
>>> sure will NOT do it again next time. We're also very rushed and things
>>> like this happen when you rush. We need to relax. We're here to have
>>> fun, not to feel like we screwed up.
>>>
>>> BTW I just saw your last email with apology:
>>>
>>> "Ok, I'll prepare the shared release. Sorry for the mess."
>>>
>>> I must apologize as well I voted +1 when you asked about this in
>>> October. Should have paid more attention then. I thought the
>>> junit-addons like skins (for only our site) and checkstyle (for only
>>> our project) had no code, just configs or css. Then saw the code being
>>> copied into it. Anyways I'm sorry I let up my guard. I'll try to be
>>> harder.
>>>
>>> FWIW, you are not personally at fault. Don't beat yourself over the
>>> head. This is a failure of the whole PMC. Let's note what happened,
>>> rectify and move on. No big deal, everyone had good intentions and
>>> apparently we were all one way or another misinformed.
>>>
>>> It's funny how anal the ASF gets about this stuff and apparently for
>>> good very reason! See how we slid right into the situation? We were
>>> all relatively unaware of it happening too. Perhaps this TLP POM
>>> release expedition procedure opened the door for it.
>> Hey, no need to prepare the nails, the whip and the pieces of wood to
>> crucify someone :)
> Who am I crucifying exactly? I think I went out my way to make sure we
> all shared the slip up instead of a single individual, which is in
> fact the case. These kinds of of comments above do not add any value
> to the conversation.
No, you got me wrong, or may be I was not clear enough. I was not
pointing out anyone here, I was just saying that we should not beat us
to death in this case. What you said was perfectly right and I just
wanted to push the same message, with a taint of humor ! Seems like I
miss the target :-)
Sometime some +1 are just enough...
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/11 8:08 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Stefan Seelmann<se...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Stefan Seelmann<se...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot<pa...@marcelot.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking it twice, yeah, I'm also afraid you're right Alex.
>>>>> This vote should probably have needed a longer and more formal vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess the artifacts have already been promoted from Nexus to the
>>>>> Maven repository now.
>>>>> What should we do about it?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I already promoted the artifacts. I'll ask infra if they can stop
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> It's already in Maven Central, so I guess it's too late:
>>>
>>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/directory/junit/junit-addons/0.1/
>>
>> The world's not going to come to an end. We've learned a lesson and we
>> sure will NOT do it again next time. We're also very rushed and things
>> like this happen when you rush. We need to relax. We're here to have
>> fun, not to feel like we screwed up.
>>
>> BTW I just saw your last email with apology:
>>
>> "Ok, I'll prepare the shared release. Sorry for the mess."
>>
>> I must apologize as well I voted +1 when you asked about this in
>> October. Should have paid more attention then. I thought the
>> junit-addons like skins (for only our site) and checkstyle (for only
>> our project) had no code, just configs or css. Then saw the code being
>> copied into it. Anyways I'm sorry I let up my guard. I'll try to be
>> harder.
>>
>> FWIW, you are not personally at fault. Don't beat yourself over the
>> head. This is a failure of the whole PMC. Let's note what happened,
>> rectify and move on. No big deal, everyone had good intentions and
>> apparently we were all one way or another misinformed.
>>
>> It's funny how anal the ASF gets about this stuff and apparently for
>> good very reason! See how we slid right into the situation? We were
>> all relatively unaware of it happening too. Perhaps this TLP POM
>> release expedition procedure opened the door for it.
>
> Hey, no need to prepare the nails, the whip and the pieces of wood to
> crucify someone :)
Who am I crucifying exactly? I think I went out my way to make sure we
all shared the slip up instead of a single individual, which is in
fact the case. These kinds of of comments above do not add any value
to the conversation.
> The PMC is in charge, we are the PMC, we have made a
> mistake, let's not reproduce it, that's it.
That's the same conclusion I came to. Why are you going here?
We need to be accountable, learn from the mistake and move on. I'm not
disagreeing with you. You're probably not reading what I write
thoroughly.
> We are confident that what has been released is probably correct, let's
> review it, and if it' sincorrect we can releae it again. What is important
> is the process we have to follow in the future.
Again this has been said. We all agree.
>> Maybe it's not right WDYT?
>
> No, I think the 4h delay for the 'project' project fits.
>
> Ok, let's move on :)
You suggesting that I am fixating?
Regardless, there's another private thread on this matter. The issue
is settled, with a clear action plan after the 72 hour vote . Please
read it carefully and let's avoid accusing people of excessively
fixating can we? "This is no big deal," I said that 3 times in my
last email. Why is that just not registering?
Regards,
Alex
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
On 2/9/11 8:08 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Stefan Seelmann<se...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Stefan Seelmann<se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot<pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
>>>> Thinking it twice, yeah, I'm also afraid you're right Alex.
>>>> This vote should probably have needed a longer and more formal vote.
>>>>
>>>> I guess the artifacts have already been promoted from Nexus to the Maven repository now.
>>>> What should we do about it?
>>> Yes, I already promoted the artifacts. I'll ask infra if they can stop it.
>> It's already in Maven Central, so I guess it's too late:
>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/directory/junit/junit-addons/0.1/
> The world's not going to come to an end. We've learned a lesson and we
> sure will NOT do it again next time. We're also very rushed and things
> like this happen when you rush. We need to relax. We're here to have
> fun, not to feel like we screwed up.
>
> BTW I just saw your last email with apology:
>
> "Ok, I'll prepare the shared release. Sorry for the mess."
>
> I must apologize as well I voted +1 when you asked about this in
> October. Should have paid more attention then. I thought the
> junit-addons like skins (for only our site) and checkstyle (for only
> our project) had no code, just configs or css. Then saw the code being
> copied into it. Anyways I'm sorry I let up my guard. I'll try to be
> harder.
>
> FWIW, you are not personally at fault. Don't beat yourself over the
> head. This is a failure of the whole PMC. Let's note what happened,
> rectify and move on. No big deal, everyone had good intentions and
> apparently we were all one way or another misinformed.
>
> It's funny how anal the ASF gets about this stuff and apparently for
> good very reason! See how we slid right into the situation? We were
> all relatively unaware of it happening too. Perhaps this TLP POM
> release expedition procedure opened the door for it.
Hey, no need to prepare the nails, the whip and the pieces of wood to
crucify someone :) The PMC is in charge, we are the PMC, we have made a
mistake, let's not reproduce it, that's it.
We are confident that what has been released is probably correct, let's
review it, and if it' sincorrect we can releae it again. What is
important is the process we have to follow in the future.
> Maybe it's not right WDYT?
No, I think the 4h delay for the 'project' project fits.
Ok, let's move on :)
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
>>> Thinking it twice, yeah, I'm also afraid you're right Alex.
>>> This vote should probably have needed a longer and more formal vote.
>>>
>>> I guess the artifacts have already been promoted from Nexus to the Maven repository now.
>>> What should we do about it?
>>
>> Yes, I already promoted the artifacts. I'll ask infra if they can stop it.
>
> It's already in Maven Central, so I guess it's too late:
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/directory/junit/junit-addons/0.1/
The world's not going to come to an end. We've learned a lesson and we
sure will NOT do it again next time. We're also very rushed and things
like this happen when you rush. We need to relax. We're here to have
fun, not to feel like we screwed up.
BTW I just saw your last email with apology:
"Ok, I'll prepare the shared release. Sorry for the mess."
I must apologize as well I voted +1 when you asked about this in
October. Should have paid more attention then. I thought the
junit-addons like skins (for only our site) and checkstyle (for only
our project) had no code, just configs or css. Then saw the code being
copied into it. Anyways I'm sorry I let up my guard. I'll try to be
harder.
FWIW, you are not personally at fault. Don't beat yourself over the
head. This is a failure of the whole PMC. Let's note what happened,
rectify and move on. No big deal, everyone had good intentions and
apparently we were all one way or another misinformed.
It's funny how anal the ASF gets about this stuff and apparently for
good very reason! See how we slid right into the situation? We were
all relatively unaware of it happening too. Perhaps this TLP POM
release expedition procedure opened the door for it.
Maybe it's not right WDYT?
It sure does come in handy though. Hate to see it go. I'd like to keep
it personally but if others think its no good we can nix it.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Alex
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
>> Thinking it twice, yeah, I'm also afraid you're right Alex.
>> This vote should probably have needed a longer and more formal vote.
>>
>> I guess the artifacts have already been promoted from Nexus to the Maven repository now.
>> What should we do about it?
>
> Yes, I already promoted the artifacts. I'll ask infra if they can stop it.
It's already in Maven Central, so I guess it's too late:
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/directory/junit/junit-addons/0.1/
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
> Thinking it twice, yeah, I'm also afraid you're right Alex.
> This vote should probably have needed a longer and more formal vote.
>
> I guess the artifacts have already been promoted from Nexus to the Maven repository now.
> What should we do about it?
Yes, I already promoted the artifacts. I'll ask infra if they can stop it.
Kind Regards,
Stefan
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
>> Thinking it twice, yeah, I'm also afraid you're right Alex.
>> This vote should probably have needed a longer and more formal vote.
>
> No big deal. Let's think about the best way to handle this rapidly.
> Perhaps a single vote after preparing shared, including the junit
> addons project as a dependency to be released. You suggested this way
> below in your hint. This is best I think than moving the junit stuff
> but then again the junit stuff is "shared" so either way we choose
> it's OK.
>
>> I guess the artifacts have already been promoted from Nexus to the Maven repository now.
>> What should we do about it?
>
> I don't know how the nexus works but there must be a mechanism to
> cancel it or mark it as invalid. Is there a way?
>
>> Another hint: To avoid two 72 hour periods I think we can also vote several related projects at once.
>> Like we used to do with Studio when a release of Shared was also required.
>
> Yep either way we choose sounds right to me. We just need the formal
> vote kick off with the 72 hour grace period for THE PACKAGE :-). Let's
> call it m1 with dependencies.
Ok, I'll prepare the shared release. Sorry for the mess.
Kind Regards,
Stefan
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
> Thinking it twice, yeah, I'm also afraid you're right Alex.
> This vote should probably have needed a longer and more formal vote.
No big deal. Let's think about the best way to handle this rapidly.
Perhaps a single vote after preparing shared, including the junit
addons project as a dependency to be released. You suggested this way
below in your hint. This is best I think than moving the junit stuff
but then again the junit stuff is "shared" so either way we choose
it's OK.
> I guess the artifacts have already been promoted from Nexus to the Maven repository now.
> What should we do about it?
I don't know how the nexus works but there must be a mechanism to
cancel it or mark it as invalid. Is there a way?
> Another hint: To avoid two 72 hour periods I think we can also vote several related projects at once.
> Like we used to do with Studio when a release of Shared was also required.
Yep either way we choose sounds right to me. We just need the formal
vote kick off with the 72 hour grace period for THE PACKAGE :-). Let's
call it m1 with dependencies.
> On 9 févr. 2011, at 16:58, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> hint: put junit-addons into shared, kick off vote on shared 1.0-m1
>> release, avoid 2 72 hour periods.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/9/11 4:34 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Seelmann<se...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to release the first version of our JUnit Add-ons.
>>>>>
>>>>> The JUnit Add-ons contain helpers for concurrent unit test that are
>>>>> used only internally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that it includes source files copied from [3], licensed
>>>>> under ALv2. According to [4] the original copyright notice and license
>>>>> header is unchanged. Attribution has been added to NOTICE and LICENSE
>>>>> file.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tag can be found at [1], the staging repository can be found at [2].
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll continue to release the staging repository after the grace period
>>>>> of 4 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/buildtools/junit-addons/tags/0.1/
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedirectory-046/
>>>>> [3]
>>>>> http://code.google.com/p/mycila/source/browse/mycila-junit/tags/mycila-junit-1.0.ga/src/main/java/com/mycila/junit/concurrent
>>>>> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>>>>>
>>>> Hold on a second. We need a formal vote on this!
>>>>
>>>> The 4 hour exception to the 72 hour vote process is just for the TLP
>>>> pom. The TLP pom does not have the same legal requirements as a
>>>> standard src/bin release artifact.
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/DIRxDEV/top-level-pom-management-policy.html
>>>>
>>>> There needs to be a review of the release artifact and the 72 vote
>>>> period is mandatory. I'm really sorry to say this but we have to roll
>>>> back this release and follow the standard operating procedures.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid Alex is right, for code releases.
>>>
>>> We probably need a vote plus a 72h delay.
>>>
>>> Question : can we ask for a vote and 72h delay with the existing released
>>> project, and if we do not reach a consensus (ie, 3 +1 and +1 > -1) then we
>>> rollback ?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Cordialement,
>>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>>> www.iktek.com
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Thinking it twice, yeah, I'm also afraid you're right Alex.
This vote should probably have needed a longer and more formal vote.
I guess the artifacts have already been promoted from Nexus to the Maven repository now.
What should we do about it?
Another hint: To avoid two 72 hour periods I think we can also vote several related projects at once.
Like we used to do with Studio when a release of Shared was also required.
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
On 9 févr. 2011, at 16:58, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> hint: put junit-addons into shared, kick off vote on shared 1.0-m1
> release, avoid 2 72 hour periods.
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/9/11 4:34 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Seelmann<se...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to release the first version of our JUnit Add-ons.
>>>>
>>>> The JUnit Add-ons contain helpers for concurrent unit test that are
>>>> used only internally.
>>>>
>>>> Please note that it includes source files copied from [3], licensed
>>>> under ALv2. According to [4] the original copyright notice and license
>>>> header is unchanged. Attribution has been added to NOTICE and LICENSE
>>>> file.
>>>>
>>>> The tag can be found at [1], the staging repository can be found at [2].
>>>>
>>>> I'll continue to release the staging repository after the grace period
>>>> of 4 hours.
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>> Stefan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/buildtools/junit-addons/tags/0.1/
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedirectory-046/
>>>> [3]
>>>> http://code.google.com/p/mycila/source/browse/mycila-junit/tags/mycila-junit-1.0.ga/src/main/java/com/mycila/junit/concurrent
>>>> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>>>>
>>> Hold on a second. We need a formal vote on this!
>>>
>>> The 4 hour exception to the 72 hour vote process is just for the TLP
>>> pom. The TLP pom does not have the same legal requirements as a
>>> standard src/bin release artifact.
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/DIRxDEV/top-level-pom-management-policy.html
>>>
>>> There needs to be a review of the release artifact and the 72 vote
>>> period is mandatory. I'm really sorry to say this but we have to roll
>>> back this release and follow the standard operating procedures.
>>
>> I'm afraid Alex is right, for code releases.
>>
>> We probably need a vote plus a 72h delay.
>>
>> Question : can we ask for a vote and 72h delay with the existing released
>> project, and if we do not reach a consensus (ie, 3 +1 and +1 > -1) then we
>> rollback ?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Cordialement,
>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>> www.iktek.com
>>
>>
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
hint: put junit-addons into shared, kick off vote on shared 1.0-m1
release, avoid 2 72 hour periods.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/11 4:34 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Seelmann<se...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> I'd like to release the first version of our JUnit Add-ons.
>>>
>>> The JUnit Add-ons contain helpers for concurrent unit test that are
>>> used only internally.
>>>
>>> Please note that it includes source files copied from [3], licensed
>>> under ALv2. According to [4] the original copyright notice and license
>>> header is unchanged. Attribution has been added to NOTICE and LICENSE
>>> file.
>>>
>>> The tag can be found at [1], the staging repository can be found at [2].
>>>
>>> I'll continue to release the staging repository after the grace period
>>> of 4 hours.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/buildtools/junit-addons/tags/0.1/
>>> [2]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedirectory-046/
>>> [3]
>>> http://code.google.com/p/mycila/source/browse/mycila-junit/tags/mycila-junit-1.0.ga/src/main/java/com/mycila/junit/concurrent
>>> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>>>
>> Hold on a second. We need a formal vote on this!
>>
>> The 4 hour exception to the 72 hour vote process is just for the TLP
>> pom. The TLP pom does not have the same legal requirements as a
>> standard src/bin release artifact.
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/DIRxDEV/top-level-pom-management-policy.html
>>
>> There needs to be a review of the release artifact and the 72 vote
>> period is mandatory. I'm really sorry to say this but we have to roll
>> back this release and follow the standard operating procedures.
>
> I'm afraid Alex is right, for code releases.
>
> We probably need a vote plus a 72h delay.
>
> Question : can we ask for a vote and 72h delay with the existing released
> project, and if we do not reach a consensus (ie, 3 +1 and +1 > -1) then we
> rollback ?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
>
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
On 2/9/11 4:34 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Seelmann<se...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> I'd like to release the first version of our JUnit Add-ons.
>>
>> The JUnit Add-ons contain helpers for concurrent unit test that are
>> used only internally.
>>
>> Please note that it includes source files copied from [3], licensed
>> under ALv2. According to [4] the original copyright notice and license
>> header is unchanged. Attribution has been added to NOTICE and LICENSE
>> file.
>>
>> The tag can be found at [1], the staging repository can be found at [2].
>>
>> I'll continue to release the staging repository after the grace period
>> of 4 hours.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/buildtools/junit-addons/tags/0.1/
>> [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedirectory-046/
>> [3] http://code.google.com/p/mycila/source/browse/mycila-junit/tags/mycila-junit-1.0.ga/src/main/java/com/mycila/junit/concurrent
>> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>>
> Hold on a second. We need a formal vote on this!
>
> The 4 hour exception to the 72 hour vote process is just for the TLP
> pom. The TLP pom does not have the same legal requirements as a
> standard src/bin release artifact.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/DIRxDEV/top-level-pom-management-policy.html
>
> There needs to be a review of the release artifact and the 72 vote
> period is mandatory. I'm really sorry to say this but we have to roll
> back this release and follow the standard operating procedures.
I'm afraid Alex is right, for code releases.
We probably need a vote plus a 72h delay.
Question : can we ask for a vote and 72h delay with the existing
released project, and if we do not reach a consensus (ie, 3 +1 and +1 >
-1) then we rollback ?
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> I'd like to release the first version of our JUnit Add-ons.
>>>
>>> The JUnit Add-ons contain helpers for concurrent unit test that are
>>> used only internally.
>>>
>>> Please note that it includes source files copied from [3], licensed
>>> under ALv2. According to [4] the original copyright notice and license
>>> header is unchanged. Attribution has been added to NOTICE and LICENSE
>>> file.
>>>
>>> The tag can be found at [1], the staging repository can be found at [2].
>>>
>>> I'll continue to release the staging repository after the grace period
>>> of 4 hours.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/buildtools/junit-addons/tags/0.1/
>>> [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedirectory-046/
>>> [3] http://code.google.com/p/mycila/source/browse/mycila-junit/tags/mycila-junit-1.0.ga/src/main/java/com/mycila/junit/concurrent
>>> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>>>
>>
>> Hold on a second. We need a formal vote on this!
>>
>> The 4 hour exception to the 72 hour vote process is just for the TLP
>> pom. The TLP pom does not have the same legal requirements as a
>> standard src/bin release artifact.
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/DIRxDEV/top-level-pom-management-policy.html
>>
>> There needs to be a review of the release artifact and the 72 vote
>> period is mandatory. I'm really sorry to say this but we have to roll
>> back this release and follow the standard operating procedures.
>
> My understanding was that we agreed to release the internal projects
> with the simplified process [5], we did multiple releases this way,
> including a src/bin artifact [6].
>
> But I agree that this isn't/wasn't a simple release an a more formal
> vote should have beed done, sorry for my fault.
Please take it easy, this is not your personal responsibility. And we
caught it so no one died. It's something the PMC is responsible for.
Back in October I did not give your email enough consideration and
voted +1 on [6]. I thought all the artifacts were like the TLP pom.
Skins, check config files and some tooling configurations to use
existing JUnit extensions that already existed.
Only now did it occur to me that it's not so simple. I see code being
copied from 3rd party projects into the junit project and we're
releasing it. That triggered me to pay more attention.
> [5] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@directory.apache.org/msg29764.html
> [6] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@directory.apache.org/msg29861.html
No worries we'll fix this. Also the rule should ONLY be for the TLP
pom because of the technical drawbacks of resolving snapshot poms.
Let's set this line in the sand and not cross it together.
BTW we should not need a release to update the skins. Skins are not an
official release that's a product. They're just resources for our
project. We can tag and use them on our site.
Thanks,
Alex
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> I'd like to release the first version of our JUnit Add-ons.
>>
>> The JUnit Add-ons contain helpers for concurrent unit test that are
>> used only internally.
>>
>> Please note that it includes source files copied from [3], licensed
>> under ALv2. According to [4] the original copyright notice and license
>> header is unchanged. Attribution has been added to NOTICE and LICENSE
>> file.
>>
>> The tag can be found at [1], the staging repository can be found at [2].
>>
>> I'll continue to release the staging repository after the grace period
>> of 4 hours.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/buildtools/junit-addons/tags/0.1/
>> [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedirectory-046/
>> [3] http://code.google.com/p/mycila/source/browse/mycila-junit/tags/mycila-junit-1.0.ga/src/main/java/com/mycila/junit/concurrent
>> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>>
>
> Hold on a second. We need a formal vote on this!
>
> The 4 hour exception to the 72 hour vote process is just for the TLP
> pom. The TLP pom does not have the same legal requirements as a
> standard src/bin release artifact.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/DIRxDEV/top-level-pom-management-policy.html
>
> There needs to be a review of the release artifact and the 72 vote
> period is mandatory. I'm really sorry to say this but we have to roll
> back this release and follow the standard operating procedures.
My understanding was that we agreed to release the internal projects
with the simplified process [5], we did multiple releases this way,
including a src/bin artifact [6].
But I agree that this isn't/wasn't a simple release an a more formal
vote should have beed done, sorry for my fault.
Kind Regards,
Stefan
[5] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@directory.apache.org/msg29764.html
[6] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@directory.apache.org/msg29861.html
Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> I'd like to release the first version of our JUnit Add-ons.
>
> The JUnit Add-ons contain helpers for concurrent unit test that are
> used only internally.
>
> Please note that it includes source files copied from [3], licensed
> under ALv2. According to [4] the original copyright notice and license
> header is unchanged. Attribution has been added to NOTICE and LICENSE
> file.
>
> The tag can be found at [1], the staging repository can be found at [2].
>
> I'll continue to release the staging repository after the grace period
> of 4 hours.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Stefan
>
>
> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/buildtools/junit-addons/tags/0.1/
> [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedirectory-046/
> [3] http://code.google.com/p/mycila/source/browse/mycila-junit/tags/mycila-junit-1.0.ga/src/main/java/com/mycila/junit/concurrent
> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>
Hold on a second. We need a formal vote on this!
The 4 hour exception to the 72 hour vote process is just for the TLP
pom. The TLP pom does not have the same legal requirements as a
standard src/bin release artifact.
https://cwiki.apache.org/DIRxDEV/top-level-pom-management-policy.html
There needs to be a review of the release artifact and the 72 vote
period is mandatory. I'm really sorry to say this but we have to roll
back this release and follow the standard operating procedures.
Thanks,
Alex