incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 2nd attempt
Date Mon, 14 May 2012 14:05:21 GMT
On 14 May 2012 08:47, Francesco Chicchiriccò <> wrote:
> On 14/05/2012 01:03, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 May 2012 23:59, Emmanuel Lécharny <> wrote:
>>> Le 5/12/12 1:42 AM, sebb a écrit :
>>>> On 11 May 2012 16:29, Francesco Chicchiriccò<>
>>>>> I've created a 1.0.0-RC1-incubating release, with the following artifacts
up for a vote:
>>>>> SVN source tag ( r1335495):
>>>> 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
>> 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:

Previous release vote:

Tags should ideally be immutable.

Similarly for the source archives - the names are identical:

> 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.

IMO this is wrong, and needs to be corrected.

> Regards.
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
> Apache Cocoon PMC and Apache Syncope PPMC Member

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message