Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 5870 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2010 13:55:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 20 Sep 2010 13:55:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 11819 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2010 13:55:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 11479 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2010 13:55:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 11472 invoked by uid 99); 20 Sep 2010 13:55:49 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:55:49 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yseeley@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.176] (HELO mail-wy0-f176.google.com) (74.125.82.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:55:27 +0000 Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so6275713wyf.35 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:55:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:reply-to:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=gODcybDpbmclJlQTI6CVYoXa1cP69GzSrgLfxpK1dvM=; b=P4rbCexsiJINQLPLHg0jxl4Q8wD0+ESYdwXAjvxNJF1VUwqiR2fmmjDpIG2pNFLj7u FQ43laPGlv62Ctl4Q4Zq73W5JF7Y2qWHamzVvQVPVctghW694uJwWz/tKSenrazdlIts l5iDB5CrX9CJQA25SmH82Dt+84JJeyVXThkwA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Ty3IUMQjCq6bjMsyWFluFBA+7epvw8XCXnWuF1/TsKMaVD8ehZL8QU4RWVeQmpF215 CpOYTqABEazyNR5yIc4s15vPavpdwgj8jd/MWarFr87JIB/VT6VjUUvWNHJ/ndjk354v VnbM4pLZ/WjXaHKdvmxDUib3tXufb3rgdweU8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.23.206 with SMTP id v56mr4390950wev.67.1284990907207; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Sender: yseeley@gmail.com Reply-To: yonik@lucidimagination.com Received: by 10.216.48.11 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:55:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C975ADB.2080607@gmail.com> References: <7A5D88B2-EC13-43E3-A175-7A8C550FC9F8@apache.org> <4C975ADB.2080607@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:55:07 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Z5ltm8QCG8ylZ5Zg5WQqLV5QE0E Message-ID: Subject: Re: discussion about release frequency. From: Yonik Seeley To: dev@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Mark Miller 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. -Yonik http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org