incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 2nd attempt
Date Mon, 14 May 2012 16:09:33 GMT
Le 5/14/12 4:05 PM, sebb a écrit :
> On 14 May 2012 08:47, Francesco Chicchiriccò<ilgrosso@apache.org>  wrote:
>> On 14/05/2012 01:03, sebb wrote:
>>> On 12 May 2012 23:59, Emmanuel Lécharny<elecharny@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> Le 5/12/12 1:42 AM, sebb a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> On 11 May 2012 16:29, Francesco Chicchiriccò<ilgrosso@apache.org>
   wrote:
>>>>>> I've created a 1.0.0-RC1-incubating release, with the following artifacts
up for a vote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SVN source tag ( r1335495):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/syncope/tags/syncope-1.0.0-RC1-incubating/
>>>>> If this is the second attempt, why is it called RC1 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely it should be called RC2 ?
>>>> Depends. As the first vote has been canceled, there was nothing like an official
RC1.
>>> RC means Release candidate; if the vote passes, it becomes the release.
>>>> As noted in the subject, this is the 2nd attempt for RC1.
>>> Does not make sense.
>>>
>>> The second attempt is the second release candidate, i.e. RC2.
>> We agreed on a version scheme where RCi are full releases (from release
>> process point of view) while not including everything planned on JIRA
>> for the corresponding version: hence, our 1.0.0-RC1-incubating doesn't
>> have all fixes planned for 1.0.0-incubating.
>>
>> In other words, RC1 is referring to the completeness of the code against
>> the issues, not to the completeness of the release against the release
>> requirements.
>>
>> At least, this is how we defined Syncope release numbering scheme;
>> moreover, it seems to me that every project is defining its own
>> versioning ([1] [2] [3] for example), and I personally think it's correct.
>>
>> Release numbers are just labels, after all, isn't it?
> Yes, they are just a convention, but if the convention is not in
> general use, then  it is potentially confusing.
>
> Other projects use alphaN / betaN suffixes, or Mnn for milestone releases.
>
> It's particularly confusing that the same SVN tag is used for both
> source releases
>
> This release vote uses:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/syncope/tags/syncope-1.0.0-RC1-incubating/
>
> Previous release vote:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/syncope/tags/syncope-1.0.0-RC1-incubating/
A tag is just a name. We don't vote tags, we vote a source package, ie a 
SVN revision number.

The reason we add the number of attempt in the subject is just to avoid 
a possible confusion.

>
> Tags should ideally be immutable.
SVN revisions are immutable.
>
> Similarly for the source archives - the names are identical:
> syncope-root-1.0.0-RC1-incubating-source.zip
> syncope-root-1.0.0-RC1-incubating-source.zip
>
>> Anyway, is there also other IPMC available to check the release to bind
>> his vote? Thanks!
> I think there are some problems with the N&L files in the source archive.
>
> The N&L files are supposed to relate to the actual items included in
> the archive; however the N&L in the source archive include references
> to binaries which are clearly not included in the archive.
Syncope generates war files, which include those binaries. Using the 
source per se does not give you anything usabe, and those using the war 
files will have those binaries included. Not having the full N&L 
(including for binaries) would be harmfull for users, IMO.

I'll check against some other projects that have the same kind of 
distribution to double check.

Holding my vote atm.

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com


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


Mime
View raw message