Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
Message-ID: <46974EB8.90807@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:06:48 +0200
From: Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Macintosh/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: 1.0.0 subprojects release candidates
References: <487a994c0707121425s5dd2a374g149109a7304bc4dc@mail.gmail.com>
	 <994ae8102dd63de1453de6057fa5bf03@ungoverned.org>
	 <4697394E.9080300@apache.org>
 <487a994c0707130258s5792a493gb6f3972fe5ec802e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <487a994c0707130258s5792a493gb6f3972fe5ec802e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Karl,

I justed wanted to make sure that everything is according to our policy.
  :)
I got a wrong impression from this thread, sorry :(

So everything is cool and fine. Great and thanks

Carsten

Karl Pauls wrote:
>> If we want to vote on something, we have to vote on the tarball. That's
>> the only thing that counts in terms of distributions/releases.
> 
> Well, that is what we plan to do if nobody has any issues with the
> release candidates. This is not a vote but a heads-up.
> 
>> This also means, if these release are meant to be the final 1.0.0
>> release, the archive we vote on has really to be 1.0.0. With the
>> consequence that if the vote should fail, there will be no real official
>> 1.0.0 release, the appropriate changes have to be made and the next
>> archive to be voted on will be 1.0.1.
> 
> Right, and to catch a failing vote early we are asking people to look
> at what we are planning to release.
> 
>> If these are "potential" release candidates (I dont find a better
>> english term right now but I hope you get what I mean), than labelling
>> them rc or rc1 is fine, but this also means once we want to release a
>> 1.0.0 a new archive has to be cut and a new vote has to be started.
> 
> True. This is what we are going to do.
> 
>> Now, I know this sounds like a pain but its the offical release policy
>> and wants you are adapted to it, its really easy as you don't have to do
>> any "magic" to change the release archvie from 1.0.0-rc to 1.0.0 etc.
>> Just create the release with the appropriate version number, but it out
>> to a place where the committers/pmc members can download (this can be a
>> public place), let them vote and either declare it official or
>> withdraw it.
> 
> Well, I might be missing something but that is exactly what we want to
> do. The only step in between is that we make release candidates
> available for people to look at. That might be overkill but this will
> be our first official release so I'd rather like as much feedback as
> possible.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Karl
> 
>> Carsten
>>
>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> > For those that don't know, these release candidates are just tags in
>> our
>> > SVN repo; they can be found here:
>> >
>> >     http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/releases
>> >
>> > -> richard
>> >
>> > On Jul 12, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Karl Pauls wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Rick and I have been working some more on the 1.0.0 release. I just
>> >> created release candidates for the first batch of subprojects we need
>> >> to release before we can release the framework namely,
>> >>
>> >> pom-1.0.0-RC
>> >> bundleplugin-1.0.0-RC2
>> >> org.osgi.core-1.0.0.-RC
>> >> shell-1.0.0-RC
>> >> shell.tui-1.0.0-RC
>> >> bundlerepository-1.0.0-RC
>> >>
>> >> We intent to call a vote on them soonish so please let us know whether
>> >> there are any showstoppers.
>> >>
>> >> regards,
>> >>
>> >> Karl
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Karl Pauls
>> >> karlpauls@gmail.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org