[lang] Going forward Was: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2]

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

First, let's make sure we keep the subjects on topic, and keep the [lang]
there for anything other than a [VOTE].

Second, shall I tag the current changes to builder/ and lang/ changes.
Unsure if it was all just javadoc chances. Guess I should dig through a
changelog :) Assuming I do, should I go ahead and tag these to 2.0?

Hen

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Gary Gregory wrote:

> I'll take the blame for causing any confusion on this one since I had
> committed these Javadoc changes "during" the vote, which was made more
> difficult due to the extremely long email delays caused by the current batch
> of viruses going 'round.
>
> My thought was that we were indeed voting on the build based on tagged
> sources and that any new commits would be in a post >2.0 release (even
> though, these changes being Javadoc changes are "harmless" and beneficial to
> the release IMHO ;-)
>
> If we want to implement a code freeze in our environment on top of using
> tags, we could do that. I guess we'd have to vote on it too :-)
>
> Gary
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 00:00
> > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2]
> >
> > > Well, if there is a question about policy/process, why not just freeze
> > the
> > > code and restart the vote?
> >
> > By tagging the CVS, he effectively has frozen the code for the Release.  I
> > was simply curious about the policy because, as I said, other projects are
> > stricter.  For example the HTTPd team has different rules
> > (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html).
> >
> > A Release Manager makes a release build, and it is automatically an alpha.
> > It becomes a beta release when at least three Committers have voted beta
> > status, and there are more +1 than -1.  It becomes a GA release when at
> > least three Committers vote for GA (stable) status, and there are more +1
> > than -1.  Notice that -1 is not a veto.  Notice, also, that the package
> > itself may go through multiple status changes, but no packaging changes.
> > The only allowable change is renaming the file to reflect the change in
> > status; exceptions can be made if a change in the contents of the tarball
> > (e.g., someone forgot to add the LICENSE file).  Otherwise, if a change in
> > the CVS needs to be incorporated, it becomes a new release (with a new
> > vote).
> >
> > Other projects, such as Avalon, also roll jars and then vote on them as a
> > Release.  So I was just asking to understand what is established as policy
> > here.  I wasn't challenging Henri's release.
> >
> > 	--- Noel
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>

Re: [lang] 2.0 release - again

[Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>]

I have checked the zips and they look fine. It must be time to upload the
release isn't it? Haven't we received word that the servers are clear now?

For 2.1 we could add some TODOs:
- Better overview.html
- Better package.html for main lang package
- Better class-level javadoc for BitField

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> New binary, source, docs/ and JDiff changes uploaded to:
>
> http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0/
>
> Not bothering with the Maven build at the moment.
>
> Hen
>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > --- Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > First, let's make sure we keep the subjects on topic, and keep the
[lang]
> > > > there for anything other than a [VOTE].
> > > >
> > > > Second, shall I tag the current changes to builder/ and lang/
changes.
> > > > Unsure if it was all just javadoc chances. Guess I should dig
through a
> > > > changelog :) Assuming I do, should I go ahead and tag these to 2.0?
> > >
> > > +1
> >
> > I've built a Changelog with tags, gone over it and nothing has been
added
> > which is not a javadoc change [at least according to the cvs comments].
> >
> > I've tagged the new files with LANG_2_0, and this tag is intended to be
> > the one for Lang 2.0. I'm not expecting any other changes to go into
this.
> > [It builds into the distribution files happily, though I've not pushed
> > them up yet to my home dir].
> >
> > The Daedalus to Minotaur migration appears to be getting close to
> > finished, if not completely finished, so we can think about doing a
> > release [and before that another vote].
> >
> > I think people can start working on Lang 2.1/3.0 now as well. If any
> > important changes have to happen to 2.0, I can branch off and make the
> > changes for a release there.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>

Re: [lang] Going forward Was: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2]

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

New binary, source, docs/ and JDiff changes uploaded to:

http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0/

Not bothering with the Maven build at the moment.

Hen

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> >
> > --- Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > First, let's make sure we keep the subjects on topic, and keep the [lang]
> > > there for anything other than a [VOTE].
> > >
> > > Second, shall I tag the current changes to builder/ and lang/ changes.
> > > Unsure if it was all just javadoc chances. Guess I should dig through a
> > > changelog :) Assuming I do, should I go ahead and tag these to 2.0?
> >
> > +1
>
> I've built a Changelog with tags, gone over it and nothing has been added
> which is not a javadoc change [at least according to the cvs comments].
>
> I've tagged the new files with LANG_2_0, and this tag is intended to be
> the one for Lang 2.0. I'm not expecting any other changes to go into this.
> [It builds into the distribution files happily, though I've not pushed
> them up yet to my home dir].
>
> The Daedalus to Minotaur migration appears to be getting close to
> finished, if not completely finished, so we can think about doing a
> release [and before that another vote].
>
> I think people can start working on Lang 2.1/3.0 now as well. If any
> important changes have to happen to 2.0, I can branch off and make the
> changes for a release there.
>
> Hen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>

Re: [lang] Going forward Was: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2]

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Phil Steitz wrote:

>
> --- Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
> >
> > First, let's make sure we keep the subjects on topic, and keep the [lang]
> > there for anything other than a [VOTE].
> >
> > Second, shall I tag the current changes to builder/ and lang/ changes.
> > Unsure if it was all just javadoc chances. Guess I should dig through a
> > changelog :) Assuming I do, should I go ahead and tag these to 2.0?
>
> +1

I've built a Changelog with tags, gone over it and nothing has been added
which is not a javadoc change [at least according to the cvs comments].

I've tagged the new files with LANG_2_0, and this tag is intended to be
the one for Lang 2.0. I'm not expecting any other changes to go into this.
[It builds into the distribution files happily, though I've not pushed
them up yet to my home dir].

The Daedalus to Minotaur migration appears to be getting close to
finished, if not completely finished, so we can think about doing a
release [and before that another vote].

I think people can start working on Lang 2.1/3.0 now as well. If any
important changes have to happen to 2.0, I can branch off and make the
changes for a release there.

Hen

Re: [lang] Going forward Was: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2]

[Phil Steitz <st...@yahoo.com>]

--- Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
> 
> First, let's make sure we keep the subjects on topic, and keep the [lang]
> there for anything other than a [VOTE].
> 
> Second, shall I tag the current changes to builder/ and lang/ changes.
> Unsure if it was all just javadoc chances. Guess I should dig through a
> changelog :) Assuming I do, should I go ahead and tag these to 2.0?

+1
> 
> Hen
> 
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Gary Gregory wrote:
> 
> > I'll take the blame for causing any confusion on this one since I had
> > committed these Javadoc changes "during" the vote, which was made more
> > difficult due to the extremely long email delays caused by the current
> batch
> > of viruses going 'round.
> >
> > My thought was that we were indeed voting on the build based on tagged
> > sources and that any new commits would be in a post >2.0 release (even
> > though, these changes being Javadoc changes are "harmless" and
> beneficial to
> > the release IMHO ;-)
> >
> > If we want to implement a code freeze in our environment on top of
> using
> > tags, we could do that. I guess we'd have to vote on it too :-)
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 00:00
> > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2]
> > >
> > > > Well, if there is a question about policy/process, why not just
> freeze
> > > the
> > > > code and restart the vote?
> > >
> > > By tagging the CVS, he effectively has frozen the code for the
> Release.  I
> > > was simply curious about the policy because, as I said, other
> projects are
> > > stricter.  For example the HTTPd team has different rules
> > > (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html).
> > >
> > > A Release Manager makes a release build, and it is automatically an
> alpha.
> > > It becomes a beta release when at least three Committers have voted
> beta
> > > status, and there are more +1 than -1.  It becomes a GA release when
> at
> > > least three Committers vote for GA (stable) status, and there are
> more +1
> > > than -1.  Notice that -1 is not a veto.  Notice, also, that the
> package
> > > itself may go through multiple status changes, but no packaging
> changes.
> > > The only allowable change is renaming the file to reflect the change
> in
> > > status; exceptions can be made if a change in the contents of the
> tarball
> > > (e.g., someone forgot to add the LICENSE file).  Otherwise, if a
> change in
> > > the CVS needs to be incorporated, it becomes a new release (with a
> new
> > > vote).
> > >
> > > Other projects, such as Avalon, also roll jars and then vote on them
> as a
> > > Release.  So I was just asking to understand what is established as
> policy
> > > here.  I wasn't challenging Henri's release.
> > >
> > > 	--- Noel
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com