geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release process change
Date Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:25:13 GMT
I like David's idea and I think it's really the right way to go about
this process.


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

View raw message