lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>
Subject Re: discussion about release frequency.
Date Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:29:22 GMT
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Sep 20, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I still think Maven should be a downstream issue.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Maven has never been a required part of our releases, and I don't
>> think we should change that.
>>
>> We should also keep in mind that there's nothing really official about
>> a "release manager".
>> There's no reason the person(s) that signed the normal release need to
>> be the same person that signs the maven stuff (but it should be a PMC
>> member if it's hosted by the ASF).
>>
>> If there are people around during a release that want to handle the
>> maven stuff, that seems fine.  It does *not* have to be the release
>> manager.  It seems fine to make reasonable accommodations if some are
>> working on making maven artifacts available at roughly the same... but
>> if not,  it should not hold up the release.
>
> I completely disagree.

With what part?  Do you mean to say you wish to make maven a required
part of our releases?
If so, perhaps you should call a vote?

>  It's either a first class citizen or it's not and by moving it out

It is not a first class citizen.  Apparently the last Solr release
went out w/o working maven support.

But it's not quite so black and white either... I see no reason to
*remove* maven related stuff from ant (and it's good if people improve
it), and I've even applied patches to the maven stuff when supplied by
others.

-Yonik

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message