incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko ─îibej <br...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Bloodhound 0.4 incubating Released
Date Sat, 02 Feb 2013 10:40:51 GMT
On 01.02.2013 18:48, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
> Releasing is essentially a sequential process so apart form promoting the
> release at the end I think only one release manager should be involved per
> release.
>
> Being a release manager isn't all that bad, just a bit of a longwinded
> process where many steps have to be taken quite carefully (don't mix up the
> to: / cc: order for general@ and bloodhound-dev@ in vote messages for
> example).

That order is more or less irrelevant. It does affect the time it takes
for the message to appear on general@ if you're not subscribed to the
list (or your e-mail address had not been moderated through on a
previous occasion). Other than that, it doesn't matter.

(And the vote status generator now sniffs the podling dev list archives
as well as general@, so it's not affected by that potential delay).

>  Automation would be great, but is probably far down our list of
> priorities.

Actually, automation is quite important. The release process has to be
well-documented in any case, and the best documentation format I know of
is a script. :) In any case it saves new release managers repeating old
mistakes over and over.

(I'm surprised the IPMC doesn't require automated releases.)

If you don't know where to start, you can rip off this script:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/tools/dist/release.py

It likely does more than Bloodhound needs, but it covers all the steps.

-- Brane

-- 
Branko ─îibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com


Mime
View raw message