shale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rahul Akolkar" <rahul.akol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Mirror v104? (was: RESULT ...)
Date Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:18:27 GMT
This ones thoroughly OT, sorry list.

On 1/11/07, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/11/07, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip/>
> >
> > Here is the relevant recent example I mentioned in the last post ( [1]
>
> The quality grade in that initial post is in the title "[VOTE] Release
> build 6.0.7 as alpha" - so they are doing the same as Struts - voting
> on an initial release as "alpha" quality. I assume the second post is
> then a vote to either keep it as alpha or upgrade it to beta.
>
<snap/>

Indeed, got that. And the two reasons you state [A] where voting twice
is not necessary also make good sense. But, is the above the same as
the Struts process ATM? I seem to remember a 2.0.1 quality vote and
now talk of 2.0.3, but no vote at all for 2.0.2 (I may have just
missed it, if so, sorry).

-Rahul

[A] http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Why-vote-twice-for-a-release-quality--p4246751.html


> Niall
>
> > followed by [2] in a couple of weeks ) from tomcat's (recently
> > improved) process. If and when I RM another Shale release, it will
> > come with a quality marker to begin with (might as well be alpha, but
> > mentioned explicitly). I prefer a release vote over a test build (that
> > was not voted on).
> >
> > In any case, let me get back to completing the v1.0.4 release tasks.
> > Many thanks for your input.
> >
> > -Rahul
>
> > [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=tomcat-dev&m=116695917620851&w=2
> > [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=tomcat-dev&m=116801203312451&w=2
> >

Mime
View raw message