avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PMC:VOTE] Release LogKit 1.2 Release Candidate 6
Date Sat, 08 Feb 2003 22:39:15 GMT


Berin Loritsch wrote:

> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>
>>> Do we release or not?  I originally posted the vote yesterday,
>>> so voting is open until next Thursday.  PLEASE vote.  Since this
>>> is a release, it requires PMC sign-off (simple majority).  If
>>> we do not reach quorum then it delays the LogKit 1.2 release.
>>>
>>> Also, please only vote against it if there is any showstoppers.
>>> We corrected one, and the new API stuff should be close enough
>>> for government work.  Let's get this thing out. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Following my failed attempts at generating the dist, I'm obliged to 
>> put up a -1 pending ...
>>
>>   (1) a proper jar manifest
>>   (2) javadoc generation without errors
>>   (3) dist generation without errors
>>
>> I don't know how you want to handle this but I would suggest we clean 
>> this issues up rapidly, get a RC7 dist in place, do the validation 
>> and commence a new vote ASAP (e.g. "[PMC:VOTE] Logkit RC7 for product 
>> release").
>
>
>
> Steve, let's get on with this already.  It doesn't have to be pristine,
> but it does have to be released. 


I'm not asking for prestine - heck - I'm ignoring 150 checkstyle flags.

>
> Your obsession with the "proper jar manifest" eludes my understanding.
> I have been using LogKit all this time with the current manifest without
> problems. 


That's because you don't leverage extensions.

>
>
> Javadoc generation "without" errors is not a mission critical problem.
> Hosed up log rotation code is.  We need to get a release out there soon. 


Agreed - I see a need for RC7 on the grounds on javadoc ommissions and 
manifest ommission. If we do a RC7 I will update the offending source ASAP.

> I am tired of seeing little piddly things come up trying to slow down
> or derail the release.  Can I encourage us in something? 


These are not little piddly things:

   1. dist - index.html, link to JavaDoc API is broken
   2. JavaDoc apis are missing ALL compat classes
   3. manifest is required

>
>
> It's Open Source software!  It doesn't have to be 100% perfect with
> every 'i' dotted and every 't' crossed.  The code (which is what is
> important) *works*, and people need it.


Come on - I'm not asking for perfection.
I'm looking for a distribution that is clean, free of errors, and 
functional.  RC6 is very close to meeting that criteria.

>
> So let's get off our high horses.  If there is a *major* *technical*
> reason why it should not be released, issue a -1.  However these things
> are very minor, and they can be fixed later.


These are small but important corrections that I fee should be addressed 
at this time.  
After all, a vote is about expressing an opinion - I'm not looking for 
perfection but I am looking for a release with at least all of the 
javadoc in place and a manifest that tells me what I'm using.

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
http://www.osm.net




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org


Mime
View raw message