shale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig McClanahan" <craig...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Mirror v104? (was: RESULT ...)
Date Fri, 12 Jan 2007 02:29:13 GMT
On 1/11/07, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/12/07, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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).
>
> AFAIK 2.0.2 was only ever a test build and not a release. I haven't
> followed s2 too closely but I believe the fact that it depended on
> unreleased XWork meant that it was never going to go GA - so the plan
> changed to getting xwork out and then doing a 2.0.3


Sorry for not responding on this thread earlier ... was heads down on some
day job stuff.

The way I understand the "Struts Way" (and the "Tomcat Way" and so on) is
that a release can be distributed (on the mirrors etc) and announced as soon
as the vote pases.  What we weren't clear (with ourselves and others) on for
1.0.4 is that it should probably be announced with a "default" stability
grade of alpha that might get upgraded later based on experience.  I've seen
"we hope to see this release's stability grade gets upgraded" type comments,
and it seems appropriate to me -- if for no other reason than to encourage
people to give us feedback to help make that decision.

Niall


Craig


> -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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message