Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of pajbam@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=NDDOP0uFez6zy7RwTK6r5fEZIUfb+xtODAg45MdvFq5PNQXTBeeWyFF0iuzWpSYIst
         4en2F1H5WJSCpg5dq93gqwJ8nlh0BEz4cFX49YLeUxgJ8JCjSvGMaY10sSNnpFPmCFsD
         wHWW6ti7dP2jDRtOPDGBjMaIkCKEJC59UXtrA=
Sender: Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pajbam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Subject: Re: [Vote] Release scheme change
From: Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa@marcelot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D279697.3040100@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:20:31 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EE7D0421-51E7-4BC7-B45A-FD267A3FC363@marcelot.net>
References: <4D279697.3040100@gmail.com>
To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>

[X] +1 Yes, change the release scheme as described above

On 7 janv. 2011, at 23:41, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:

> Hi guys,
>=20
> we discussed about the release scheme this week, and reached a kind of =
agreement that the current release scheme is not a perfect fit.
>=20
> One solution we agreed on would be to switch to use the Eclipse =
release scheme, which is the following :
>=20
> Normal releases :
>    major.minor.fixes where some API modification requires a major =
release, a feature addition requires a minor release, and the bug fixes =
leads to a fixes release
>=20
> Before a major release :
>    M1, M2, ... : as many milestones as necessary to converge to a API =
full and feature complete major version
>    RC1, RC2, ... : as many release candidates as necessary to =
stabilize the major release, giving an opportunity for users to test the =
candidate, and for us to fix the errors.
>=20
> We could also generate nightly builds adding a vAAAAMMJJ extension to =
those builds, as proposed by Jesse.
>=20
> I propose a vote now, to see if everyone agrees with this schema =
change.
>=20
> [ ] +1 Yes, change the release scheme as described above
> [ ] +/-0 I don't have an opinion
> [ ] -1 No, keep the current scheme or follow another scheme
>=20
> Thanks !
>=20
> --=20
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel L=E9charny
> www.iktek.com
>=20