Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release commons-logging 1.1.0 As Alpha1
From: Simon Kitching <skitching@apache.org>
Reply-To: skitching@apache.org
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <1140350977.6850.18.camel@knossos.elmet>
References: <1140277115.5687.43.camel@knossos.elmet>
	 <55afdc850602180812o2f4a9b8dge81f3e86319be02@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1140335985.5415.9.camel@knossos.elmet>
	 <1140343158.3813.40.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1140350977.6850.18.camel@knossos.elmet>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:53:55 +1300
Message-Id: <1140378835.3813.13.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 12:09 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 22:59 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote:
> > Sorry but I don't like the idea of calling the code "beta" either. I
> > would prefer to tell Tomcat/jboss/axis etc that there is a JCL 1.1 RC5
> > available. That tells everybody that we think things are very close to
> > releasable state. It also tells people that they need to test & provide
> > feedback pretty quickly if they want to influence the release. Calling
> > this a "beta" release implies neither of those things.
> 
> it's not about influence: it's about ensuring that the code base we have
> really is compatible and really solves the problems we think it does. i
> *really* don't want to spend the next year of my life fielding abuse
> about how bad JCL 1.1 is. IMO the only way to ensure that this does not
> happen is to get the code well tested in containers before it's full
> official release. 
> 
> using alpha and beta's for testing is well established amongst apache
> communities (and others) with large existing installation bases.
> 
> a release candidate is not an official distribution of any kind. it's
> very difficult to get unofficial distributions tested by anyone who is
> not a developer of the product. it is very difficult to generate any
> kind of publicity around an unofficial release. IMHO it's going to take
> a lot more effort to talk organisations into testing an unofficial
> distribution that it would take to approach them about testing
> compatibility with an official public alpha or beta release.

Ah. So what you really want is for this jarfile (whatever it is called)
to be distributed via the standard jakarta download sites, rather than
being an RC which is only available from people.apache.org/~rdonkin?

That certainly sounds reasonable. It still sounds odd to me to call this
"alpha" or "beta" though.

I'll go with whatever release approach gets consensus...

Cheers,

Simon


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