esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gianugo Rabellino <>
Subject Re: Release 1.0-RC2 in Jira
Date Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:00:16 GMT
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Ethan Jewett <> wrote:
> I only have two things to add here (assuming that this is the
> definition of a release within Apache):
> 1. My original concern: I think that nearly all the changes in JIRA
> that are assigned to Release-1.0-RC2 should be moved to something else
> called Release-1.1. We already agreed on a locked scope for release
> 1.0 and I don't think we should add anything to 1.0 release candidates
> aside from things we have agreed are blocking bugs. ESME-162 (mailto
> actions crash the server) is probably an example of something that
> should stay in Release-1.0-RC2. ESME-100 (finish Web UI) is an example
> of something that should *not* stay in Release-1.0-RC2.

This is a valid concern, although orthogonal to the discussion here.
Still, yes, I would agree RCs should not contain any new features as
they might introduce bugs or regressions.

> 2. Not to pick on our mentors, but this definition doesn't make any
> sense to me. It is aligned with the official Apache release definition
> at but we've just moved
> the question from the definition of "release" to the definition of
> "the act of publishing it beyond the ESME group of developers (this
> mailing list)". If this is the definition of an Apache release, then
> the publicly accessible SVN repository is a release. I have a hard
> time believing that if I do an export from the ESME SVN repo and
> upload it to my page to facilitate testing that this
> constitutes a significantly different action from sending someone
> instructions on exporting the SVN repo themselves.

As Richard pointed out, the real difference between "do an svn
checkout -r xxx" and "grab this tarball we just released" is consensus
coming from a community blessing by means of a vote. It's not peanuts,
it makes all the difference.

> I suggest that we work with a narrower definition. Something like "a
> signed tarball published to
> and advertised on the public ESME website and/or the public mailing
> list is a release".

You're more than welcome to argue your case, as no ASF procedure is
carved in stone, but know that you should make sure you place your
soapbox on front of the right audience - this is not the place to
discuss what the ASF, as a whole, considers a release to be -
general@incubator might be a better starting point. Until the current
definition stands, so does the current process.

Gianugo Rabellino
M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source:

View raw message