Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:12:55 -0700
From: Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: publishing 10.2.1.0 to the Apache mirrors
In-reply-to: <44E1FD08.7000900@bristowhill.com>
Sender: Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <44E20097.5040403@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <44E0F585.6060906@sun.com> <44E0F74D.3090505@apache.org>
 <44E102E3.8090805@sun.com> <44E104CD.5030704@bristowhill.com>
 <44E1071E.8060905@bristowhill.com> <44E1BA67.9070506@sun.com>
 <44E1FD08.7000900@bristowhill.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)

Thanks, Jean. I agree.

-Rick

Jean T. Anderson wrote:

>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>  
>
>>Thanks, Jean. I will stop putting effort into this one.
>>    
>>
>
>Even with the jdbc 4.0 license issue resolved, you mentioned other
>"serious defects", which makes me think that holding off on this one
>would be wise. You noted that "the next distribution can be a serious
>release candidate" -- maybe *that* would be the one to put on the mirrors.
>
>Voting to put a beta on the mirrors doesn't seem like the best use of
>the community's time to me unless it is a serious candidate. But that's
>just my opinion....
>
>-jean
>
>
>  
>
>>Regards,
>>-Rick
>>
>>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>I don't know. It was suggested last week that we publish the beta to
>>>>>the
>>>>>mirrors to broaden its exposure. The intention wasn't to claim that it
>>>>>was GA-ready. I'm trying to figure out what is entailed in publishing a
>>>>>beta to the Apache mirrors. Has this been done before? Maybe I should
>>>>>copy the distribution to svn.apache.org rather than www.apache.org? I'm
>>>>>muddled by the description at http://www.apache.org/dev/mirrors.html.
>>>>>    
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>anything that is put on the asf mirrors must be voted on, approved by
>>>>the pmc, signed etc. The asf doesn't require that a distribution be "GA
>>>>ready".
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Rick, earlier in another thread [1] you wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I don't think that this beta can become a release. It has some
>>>>serious defects, including the licensing issues. However, those
>>>>defects do not prevent users from testing the completed features. I'm
>>>>hoping we will get significant feedback during this beta period so
>>>>that the next distribution can be a serious release candidate
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>No, this should not go up on the mirrors.
>>>
>>>-jean
>>>
>>>[1]
>>>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200608.mbox/%3c44E0C99A.1070109@sun.com%3e
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>