Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of fmeschbe@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.185 as permitted sender)
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re-trying releases
From: Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com>
To: "dev@felix.apache.org" <dev@felix.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikBr9m5-kkN4Z28N3=7AjERCh-DZS+cattTH+8M@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikBr9m5-kkN4Z28N3=7AjERCh-DZS+cattTH+8M@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:18:58 +0100
Message-ID: <1296652738.20360.1254.camel@meschbix>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

My vetoes (actually there is no veto in a release vote since this is a
majority vote) 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).

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.
>