directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Seelmann <seelm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Release JUnit Add-ons 0.1 - take 2
Date Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:33:39 GMT
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Seelmann <seelmann@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> I'd like to release the first version of our JUnit Add-ons.
>>
>> The JUnit Add-ons contain helpers for concurrent unit test that are
>> used only internally.
>>
>> Please note that it includes source files copied from [3], licensed
>> under ALv2. According to [4] the original copyright notice and license
>> header is unchanged. Attribution has been added to NOTICE and LICENSE
>> file.
>>
>> The tag can be found at [1], the staging repository can be found at [2].
>>
>> I'll continue to release the staging repository after the grace period
>> of 4 hours.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/buildtools/junit-addons/tags/0.1/
>> [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedirectory-046/
>> [3] http://code.google.com/p/mycila/source/browse/mycila-junit/tags/mycila-junit-1.0.ga/src/main/java/com/mycila/junit/concurrent
>> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>>
>
> Hold on a second. We need a formal vote on this!
>
> The 4 hour exception to the 72 hour vote process is just for the TLP
> pom. The TLP pom does not have the same legal requirements as a
> standard src/bin release artifact.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/DIRxDEV/top-level-pom-management-policy.html
>
> There needs to be a review of the release artifact and the 72 vote
> period is mandatory. I'm really sorry to say this but we have to roll
> back this release and follow the standard operating procedures.

My understanding was that we agreed to release the internal projects
with the simplified process [5], we did multiple releases this way,
including a src/bin artifact [6].

But I agree that this isn't/wasn't a simple release an a more formal
vote should have beed done, sorry for my fault.

Kind Regards,
Stefan


[5] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@directory.apache.org/msg29764.html
[6] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@directory.apache.org/msg29861.html

Mime
View raw message