commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <n...@devtech.com>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2]
Date Sun, 24 Aug 2003 06:59:45 GMT
> 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


Mime
View raw message