commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r788761 - /commons/proper/email/tags/EMAIL_1_2/
Date Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:14:33 GMT

I personally don't get all the discussion here, because this very question has imho been discussed
a lot in the past (on commons and maven lists). 

From what I know the widely agreed output of this discussion has been: 

1.) do n PRJ-x-RC-n before cutting a release and vote on them as if they were final.

2.) If the vote fails, create a PRJ-x-RC-(n+1) and redo the vote.

3.) once the vote has passed, take the last PRJ-x-RC-n tag and based on this cut a release

4.) If and only if there is a show stopper with PRJ-x we have to delete the tag in the SVN.
But this situation should really not appear in praxis since the PRJ-x-RC-n has been reviewed
And btw, the ONLY binding delivery of ASF is the signed source.tar.gz and not the SVN tag.
So deleting a tag in SVN (although highly undesirable) imho isn't strictly forbidden.

So anyone willing to explain me what the problem is now?

txs and LieGrue,

--- Jochen Wiedmann <> schrieb am Mo, 29.6.2009:

> Von: Jochen Wiedmann <>
> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r788761 - /commons/proper/email/tags/EMAIL_1_2/
> An: "Commons Developers List" <>
> Datum: Montag, 29. Juni 2009, 7:37
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:13 AM,
> sebb<>
> wrote:
> > Are you sure that is the case?
> >
> > The Commons release wiki page implies that one can
> provide the RC number as in
> >
> >  
>  <commons.rc.version>RC2</commons.rc.version>
> Obviously commons has managed to introduce yet another
> peculiarity in
> its release process ... I have to admit that I don't know
> what this
> thing does.
> The important part, from my point of view, is that I'd like
> to reuse
> all the standards and procedures that Maven itself uses
> (subject to
> the same legal rules and policies we must follow
> ourselves), and
> concentrate on the projects contents, rather than have
> anything
> special. In particular, because I have followed the process
> from
> twice (Rat 0.6 and XML-RPC 3.2) and found it incredibly
> smooth and
> easy to go: A real advancement.
> Just the fact that we have our own release document, which
> is much
> more complex than the above document, rather than mostly
> just
> referring to it, speaks for itself.
> Jochen
> -- 
> Don't trust a government that doesn't trust you.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message