Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Mar 29, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
>> -1
>>
>
> We'll ignore this as it isn't a vote :)
>
>> Whilst I agree with the intention, we do not have a process defined
>> that would allow us to generate a reproducable release. This led to
>> several of the issues with the last M3 release that ultimately made
>> is unusable. We must fix this before we can release another version.
>>
>> Specific things I think we need include in such a process:
>> * an mechanical process for producing the candidate binaries that can be
>> executed against any SVN tag. This would reduce the potential for
>> minor variations by people doing the release that would result in
>> potentially different binaries
>>
>
> Yes
>
>> * elimination of SNAPSHOT dependencies - these are by nature ephemeral
>> making it impossible to later regenerate the same distribution
>>
>
> Yes
>
>> * a testing/review period that is at least comprehensive enough to catch
>> the blaring defects that plagued M3
>
>
> yes
>
>>
>> * verification that the src bundle actually builds and results in the
>> same binary as we are distibuting
>
>
> Yes
>
> All of these were the standard way for other projects I've been
> involved with. No argument.
>
> But can we, with this in mind, first discuss going forward w/ a
> release? We're going to have to bang out a real release process for
> 1.0, and this is a good opportunity to get started. I volunteer to help.
Is now a good time to talk about how Geornimo needs its own remote maven
repo?
Regards,
Alan
|