You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de> on 2004/07/08 11:54:49 UTC
Releasing 2.1.5.1
I'm planning to release 2.1.5.1 (2.1.5 + the two missing files)
tomorrow morning if noone objects.
I will create a branch in CVS from 2.1.5, change the build script
accordingly and do the usual release process (without testing :) )
I hope this is ok with everybody?
Carsten
Carsten Ziegeler
Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.net/weblogs/rael/
Re: Releasing 2.1.5.1
Posted by Unico Hommes <un...@hippo.nl>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> I'm planning to release 2.1.5.1 (2.1.5 + the two missing files)
>> tomorrow morning if noone objects.
>>
>> I will create a branch in CVS from 2.1.5, change the build script
>> accordingly and do the usual release process (without testing :) )
>>
>> I hope this is ok with everybody?
>
>
> We should start of taking the habit of voting the release of the
> actual tarballs.
>
+1 Exactly my thoughts
--
Unico
Re: Releasing 2.1.5.1
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>At least we have the hope that this will help avoiding such problems.
>To be honest, I suspect that even if we had a tarball before, noone
>would have noticed the missing files. See how long it took until
>someone found out!
>
>Anyways: plus +1 - let's give it a try starting with 2.1.6
>
>
+1, and +1 also for releasing 2.1.5.1
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: Releasing 2.1.5.1
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@vafer.org>.
> Anyways: plus +1 - let's give it a try starting with 2.1.6
yepp +1 :)
cheers
--
Torsten
RE: Releasing 2.1.5.1
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> A typical scenario is that the release manager uploads the
> tarballs along with the checksums on his private web space at
> Apache, and that a vote is done on those after - let's say -
> 72 hours. If the vote is ok then the release manager can
> simply move the files in the dist section.
>
Yes, I'm fine with this - as long as we don't checkin anything
between the tarball has been created and the release takes place.
> > My naiv understanding was that we all test the tarballs during our
> > code freeze, so actually I thought we vote on a "virtual tarball"
> > so to speak.
>
> Going 'real' instead of 'virtual' could help us not repeat
> the same mistake we have done now. It makes it possible to
> have the actual tarball be reviewed by all that want to (and
> that should if they vote IMHO).
>
At least we have the hope that this will help avoiding such problems.
To be honest, I suspect that even if we had a tarball before, noone
would have noticed the missing files. See how long it took until
someone found out!
Anyways: plus +1 - let's give it a try starting with 2.1.6
Carsten
Re: Releasing 2.1.5.1
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
>>We should start of taking the habit of voting the release of
>>the actual tarballs.
...
> Now, how do we want to do this practically. Imho this would require
> that we build the tarballs and give people time to test them (some
> days) so they can really vote on them.
A typical scenario is that the release manager uploads the tarballs
along with the checksums on his private web space at Apache, and that a
vote is done on those after - let's say - 72 hours. If the vote is ok
then the release manager can simply move the files in the dist section.
> My naiv understanding was that we all test the tarballs during our
> code freeze, so actually I thought we vote on a "virtual tarball"
> so to speak.
Going 'real' instead of 'virtual' could help us not repeat the same
mistake we have done now. It makes it possible to have the actual
tarball be reviewed by all that want to (and that should if they vote IMHO).
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Releasing 2.1.5.1
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> > I'm planning to release 2.1.5.1 (2.1.5 + the two missing files)
> > tomorrow morning if noone objects.
> >
> > I will create a branch in CVS from 2.1.5, change the build script
> > accordingly and do the usual release process (without testing :) )
> >
> > I hope this is ok with everybody?
>
> We should start of taking the habit of voting the release of
> the actual tarballs.
>
Ok, I'm not against it, but I think it's not necessary of 2.1.5.1
as it's really 2.1.5 plus the two files - but we can do it there
as well.
Now, how do we want to do this practically. Imho this would require
that we build the tarballs and give people time to test them (some
days) so they can really vote on them.
My naiv understanding was that we all test the tarballs during our
code freeze, so actually I thought we vote on a "virtual tarball"
so to speak.
Carsten
Re: Releasing 2.1.5.1
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> I'm planning to release 2.1.5.1 (2.1.5 + the two missing files)
> tomorrow morning if noone objects.
>
> I will create a branch in CVS from 2.1.5, change the build script
> accordingly and do the usual release process (without testing :) )
>
> I hope this is ok with everybody?
We should start of taking the habit of voting the release of the actual
tarballs.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Releasing 2.1.5.1
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>I'm planning to release 2.1.5.1 (2.1.5 + the two missing files)
>tomorrow morning if noone objects.
>
>I will create a branch in CVS from 2.1.5, change the build script
>accordingly and do the usual release process (without testing :) )
>
>I hope this is ok with everybody?
>
>
Great. +1.
Vadim