Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bruce.snyder@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.218.224 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=xkgv4bcFejcSW6lSYPM+T/wfHsDEcQy+FskiBKxAZPzzG7NpWPm4Qu/3QjzK0sKiM1
         M/v5ru8jXQLd5UoPMNwpyypnEaHUbBl/+FeL/KlCCs/dBGNoqAHCAEk8u0Ds/PGbf+Dm
         jixgQzzLldd9QrUpvCKyiNEo6hJlI2fss228A=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <af2843cd0909171524u3be35274n6583b2d262608a43@mail.gmail.com>
References: <36e91d9d0909171156k7b443f88r73c55929b2e43f7e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7b3355cb0909171442h4aabe83cpc327eb6bf41bdea9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <af2843cd0909171524u3be35274n6583b2d262608a43@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:23:47 -0600
Message-ID: <7b3355cb0909171723t1a7e7442l2188e9eea9ee9d35@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ 5.3.0
From: Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@gmail.com>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Hiram Chirino <chirino@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's been deployed to a staging repo. =A0See my earlier reply about that =
in
> this thread.

Then we should probably vote on and release that module separately and
before the full ActiveMQ release. The ActiveMQ release candidates
shouldn't make use of candidate modules located in temporary repos.

>> Also, why has there been no discussion regarding the preparation for
>> this release on the dev list?
>>
>>
> Isn't that what what's going on now?
>
> IMHO rolling release candidates is the best way to get folks engaged and
> discussing the current state of the product and whats still missing.

Agreed.

> As we have long seen in the History of ActiveMQ releases.. it typically
> takes several release candidates before everyone's happy. =A0I guess this
> first release candidate was no different!

Agreed, release candidates are the best way to seek consensus for a
release. To improve upon the way we go about handling releases, I'd
like to suggest a couple minor changes:

* Since tags are supposed to be a snapshot in time and therefore
shouldn't change, I'd like to suggest that the tag name be changed to
reflect the fact that it's a release candidate, e.g.,
activemq-5.3.0-RC1, etc. Either that or we could instead work from a
branch that can change as much as necessary until there's agreement on
which candidate to release.

* I'd also like to suggest that tarballs and zips for each release
candidate be labeled as such, e.g.,
apache-activemq-5.3.0-RC1-bin.tar.gz,
apache-activemq-5.3.0-RC2-bin.tar.gz, etc. This way there is no
confusion and downloaded items are clearly marked as a release
candidate and not a full 5.3 release.

Also, while we're discussing releases, we should make sure that the
release guide reflects the latest practices:

http://activemq.apache.org/release-guide.html

I see that it needs to be updated to include the process for release
candidates.

> That's why I'm grateful to anyone who take the initiative to start rollin=
g
> the release candidates. =A0They are basically taking on a tough job and
> prodding the rest of to get involved the release!
>
> We really do need to start doing releases more often.

+1 to releasing more often. We should probably aim for more frequent
minor releases, i.e., 5.2.1, 5.2.2, etc. so fixes are delivered
faster.

Bruce
--=20
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=3D6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I=
;\"YC;VT*"
);'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder