river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release River 2.2.0
Date Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:16:39 GMT
According to http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html:

"Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to 
provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate 
regardless of their geographic locations."

I read "next release" as meaning the release after the one we are voting on.

Patricia


On 7/1/2011 4:08 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
> "next release" being 2.2.0 or 2.2.1?
>
> I would still like to release 2.2.0 as-is with a nicer-to-build (and better
> docs on running the tests!) coming very soon after as 2.2.1.
>
> Exactly how long do we need to leave the voting open for anyway?
>
>
>
> Grammar and spelling have been sacrificed on the altar of messaging via
> mobile device.
>
> On 1 Jul 2011 12:01, "Peter"<jini@zeus.net.au>  wrote:
>> You made a valid point about compiling and first impressions.
>>
>> We should make a point of getting the next release out soon with better
> build and test instructions.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter.
>>
>> ----- Original message -----
>>> I'm going to have limited e-mail access (iPhone only) for the next few
>>> hours.
>>>
>>> If our incubator space is about to go away, maybe we should shove this
>>> one out the door, for the sake of the better binaries and having a top
>>> level release, and then produce 2.2.1 ASAP to clean up the loose ends.
>>>
>>> Patricia
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/30/2011 6:54 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>> The build is clean if the classes are removed. At least one QA test
>>>> fails. That is why I suggested as an alternative fix removing the two
>>>> classes and skipping the failing test.
>>>>
>>>> Patricia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/30/2011 6:32 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
>>>>> Would modifying the build instructions help? And also raising a Jira
>>>>> to fix
>>>>> later.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm keen to get this release out, obviously. But like you say, bad
> first
>>>>> impressions do leave a lingering bad feel.
>>>>>
>>>>> how does the build fail with the removed classes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>> Grammar and spelling have been sacrificed on the altar of messaging
> via
>>>>> mobile device.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30 Jun 2011 14:12, "Patricia Shanahan"<pats@acm.org>  wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/30/2011 1:42 AM, Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30-06-11 10:12, Tom Hobbs wrote:
>>>>>>>> Actually, lets have a proper vote thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Release the artifacts 2.2.0 which can be found in
>>>>>>>> http://river.apache.org/~thobbs/river?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 Peter Firmstone
>>>>>>>> +1 Tom Hobbs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Grammar and spelling have been sacrificed on the altar of
> messaging
>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>> mobile device.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 release early, release often!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't like releasing with source code that does not compile
> following
>>>>>> the build instructions in the release. It creates a bad first
> impression
>>>>>> for anyone interested in the source code. I would like to see the
> build
>>>>>> instructions updated, NameServiceImpl changed to be 1.5 compatible,
> and
>>>>>> have an opportunity to test the new build instructions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, the release does get better code into the hands
> of
>>>>>> people who are only interested in the binary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realize my negative vote is only symbolic. Three positive votes
> are
>>>>>> enough to permit a release to go out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patricia
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message