Release-related issues [was: Re: Blocking Issues

[Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>]

>> Tim indicated that this was "housekeeping" which I took to mean the
>> normal due diligence on a release.
>
> Yes, but i marked it as Blocker (same process as i did for the previous
> releases) because a release should not be rolled until the situation is
> suitable.

This is fairly trivial, but I'm thinking we'd help things by
separating those issues that simply "need to be done as a part of
every release" vs. actual issues targeted at a specific release.  I
see two ways to help:

a) Add a new version with, instead of a "-dev" extension, have "-rel"
suffix.  Then, we agree that the workflow is:
  a1) "x-dev" issues to zero
  a2) code freeze
  a3) "x-rel" issues to zero
  a4) release

OR

b) We add these "need to be done as a part of every release" issues to
a new "Release" component so that they might be easily filtered out.

Anyway, trivial, but I think the separation is helpful to reviewing
"real" issues vs those that simply need to be done before release.

--tim

Re: Release-related issues

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Tim Williams wrote:
> 
> This is fairly trivial, but I'm thinking we'd help things by
> separating those issues that simply "need to be done as a part of
> every release" vs. actual issues targeted at a specific release.  I
> see two ways to help:
> 
> a) Add a new version with, instead of a "-dev" extension, have "-rel"
> suffix.  Then, we agree that the workflow is:
>   a1) "x-dev" issues to zero
>   a2) code freeze
>   a3) "x-rel" issues to zero
>   a4) release
> 
> OR
> 
> b) We add these "need to be done as a part of every release" issues to
> a new "Release" component so that they might be easily filtered out.
> 
> Anyway, trivial, but I think the separation is helpful to reviewing
> "real" issues vs those that simply need to be done before release.

Good idea.

Sorry, i don't know how to decide which way is better.
Toss a coin, and just do it. We can always change.

-David

Re: Release-related issues

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> One thing we did not had before in any release is that we have some
> maven artifacts in our svn rep.
> 
> whiteboard/cocoon-2.2-blocks
> 
> Are we going to deploy those to the maven rep?

We have decided in the past to use Ivy, and gradually integrate
that with our build system. See mail archives for that.

I imagine that Ivy can deploy stuff to a Maven repository.

Perhaps we can get started with Ivy, just manage a few supporting
products, and also use it to deploy those blocks.

I reckon that there is more to this topic than just those
technical aspects.

We need to get those cocoon-2.2-blocks released because they
are going beyond this group of developers.

More info at http://apache.org/dev/#releases
Especially: http://apache.org/dev/release.html#what

They probably should have separate release cycles to core Forrest.

We also need to be sure to build community support for these new aspects.

Sorry, in a rush, so just a few quick notes.

-David

Re: Release-related issues [was: Re: Blocking Issues

[Thorsten Scherler <th...@juntadeandalucia.es>]

One thing we did not had before in any release is that we have some
maven artifacts in our svn rep.

whiteboard/cocoon-2.2-blocks

Are we going to deploy those to the maven rep?

salu2
-- 
Thorsten Scherler <thorsten.at.apache.org>
Open Source Java <consulting, training and solutions>

Sociedad Andaluza para el Desarrollo de la Sociedad 
de la Información, S.A.U. (SADESI)