geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jacek Laskowski" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release process change
Date Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:35:40 GMT


On 12/22/06, Matt Hogstrom <> wrote:
> David brought up a proposed change to the release process around some
> specs that he is currently working through.  As you all know the
> release process has been a challenge for quite some time.  Branching,
> building, voting, building, voting, building voting, etc.  Which is
> quite time consuming.  It may be that we've gone too far in the
> release process in terms of how were structured.  We need a better
> way that ensures we are releasing good binaries in terms of code
> quality as well as meeting the legal requirements.  I think David's
> suggestion is a step in the right direction.
> We elect someone to be the release manager which in essence empowers
> them to follow through the process of getting software out the door.
> In David's proposal (currently for specs and this is a great starting
> point) is to propose a release and use Maven to release:prepare /
> release:perform to create the final binaries and place them into the
> Maven repo.
> In essence, the release manager (or whoever is working to release
> some component) indicates their desire and points to the branch to be
> released.  This effectively defines the content of the release.
> Folks on the project would then build from that branch and satisfy
> themselves that they are satisfied with the content and vote.  The
> release manager would then release using the Maven plugin and be
> responsible for the actual distribution.
> Based on the way we can release with Maven 2 we are significantly
> closer to release early / release often.
> The content of the vote would be something like
> Vote:  Allow individual modules to be released based on source
> content in SVN as indicated by the release manager and use Maven to
> produce and release the appropriate artifacts.
> I'd like to leave this open for discussion through next Friday and
> bring this up for a vote first week in January.  This discussion
> thread is the place to get ideas on the table.  I suspect that this
> will not garner 100% support so this vote will be a majority
> consensus.  Remember, we can always change things later if they
> aren't working out.
> If you like the proposal as is just simply give a +1 so people can
> know your opinion.  Its not a vote in this thread but simply a quick
> determination of opinion.
> For those who haven't released before, this will really simplify the
> process and make it less tedious and allow more people to be involved.
> Matt Hogstrom

Jacek Laskowski

View raw message