felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Re-trying releases
Date Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:59:04 GMT
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 14:18, Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> My vetoes (actually there is no veto in a release vote since this is a
> majority vote)

I know there's no vetoes in releases, but the goal is usually to
gather a consensus.
The fact you voted -1 puts a lot of pressure on me if I want to go to
the majority in order to have those released ;-)

> are grounded on a message Roy Fielding once sent to the
> Jackrabbit list [1]:
>> The problem with doing all of our laundry in public is that the public
>> often download our unreleased packages even when we tell them not to.
>> For that reason, most Apache projects increment the patch-level number
>> each time a new package is produced (releases do not need to be
>> sequential).

I suppose that depends on the definition of "most". Over the dozen of
projects I'm involved at the ASF, this is the first time I see that.
Maybe for projects like httpd that was the case, but I don't expect
many people that aren't felix committers to have downloaded those
released in the last 48 hours, so I still stand by the fact that in
our case, people are very aware that the jars aren't official yet.

Anyway, if that's us becoming an official Felix project policy, I'd
like that to be written somewhere.  Oral tradition is not really good
for newcomers ;-)

> Unfortunately I cannot readily find the written rule for this, but this
> makes perfect sense to me, which is why I would prefer to get a new
> version number. Which is also why I always choose a new version number
> for a release vote after I had to cancel a vote.
> Regards
> Felix
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/533ybky6pqwwc2is
> Am Mittwoch, den 02.02.2011, 11:16 +0000 schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
>> Over the past two years, I've been doing several releases in Felix and
>> i've re-rolled some with the same version without any problems.
>> I don't see any mention about not reusing the same number twice in the
>> release process:
>> http://felix.apache.org/site/release-management-nexus.html
>> What's the driver behing that ?
>> Until those releases are published, poeple accessing those are fully
>> aware of waht they are, so I don't see that as a problem.

Guillaume Nodet
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
Open Source SOA

View raw message