incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hiram Chirino" <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Date Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:38:32 GMT
I think you misunderstood me.  I agree that release name on the
release artifact should not change.  But there should be some simple
mechanism so that folks can tell which internal review version you are
talking about.  We just choose to do that by uploading each rebuild of
the same artifact to a new directory.

On 11/21/06, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I just don't like that changes to the bits based on an
> internal review should change the name of the release.
>
> Craig
>
> On Nov 21, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
> > To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ
> > 4.1.0 and we drop it in
> > a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote
> > something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory
> > called RC2 etc.
> >
> > So I would guess you guys just need to put out at  0.9.6-incubating
> > RC2
> >
> > On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@bea.com> wrote:
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the
> >> > > 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be
> >> > > confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and
> >> > then publish
> >> > > another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate
> >> > aren't new releases.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on
> >> > 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next
> >> > iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
> >>
> >> I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet;
> >> nobody should be confused by a vote for it.
> >>
> >> Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd
> >> prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and
> >> 0.9.6.1
> >> implies that one does.
> >>
> >> However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this
> >> going
> >> to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's
> >> currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
> >>
> >> -Patrick
> >> _____________________________________________________________________
> >> __
> >> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may
> >> contain
> >> information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and
> >> affiliated
> >> entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted
> >> and/or
> >> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
> >> individual
> >> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
> >> recipient,
> >> and have received this message in error, please immediately return
> >> this
> >> by email and then delete it.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Blog: http://hiramchirino.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message