tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yoav Shapira" <>
Subject Re: Tomcat 6.0.1 alpha
Date Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:35:54 GMT
I understand what Bill is saying.  Let's talk specifics to see what we missed.

We had a poll on this public mailing list to decide on a time and date
to cut 6.0.1.  We agreed on a time/date, and cut the release then.  We
announced here that the release was available and said we'd have a
stability vote in one week.  The release was tentatively rated as
alpha by the release manager.  After a week, we had the stability
vote, and decided the release is indeed alpha and not more stable.  We
also decided to cut 6.0.2 next.

What did we miss?  Was it a formal announcement to users@tomcat.a.o
about 6.0.1 stability?  Was it formally marking the 6.0.1 time/date
poll as a voting thread and posting its results?


On 11/17/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <> wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
> > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >> Guys - something got broken again in your release process against ASF
> >> policy...
> >> I don't see three +1's for any of the recent postings to your
> >> downloads page.
> >>
> >
> > Nothing got broken.
> Actually it did, because I've followed the list for some 3 years although
> I don't have the cycles to be active (too many fingers in other dikes within
> and outside the ASF).  I brought this up almost a year ago now and watched
> as the list started voting on all it's distribution packages (e.g. 'release'
> in whichever form, alpha beta or general availability).  Things were following
> the ASF procedure :)
> > Tomcat is probably one of the latest remaining projects
> > where the developers and PMC still works on the
> > original ASF presumptions (CTR).
> CTR/RTC has nothing to do with voting on the final distribution package.
> It has to do with how the source code repository is handled, and I think
> (from following the discussion on dev@) that the current policies suit the
> project very well.
> > The vote itself is a minor thing compared with all
> > the work and communication that happened a long time before
> > the email stating: "I'll make the release".
> No, this is what the ASF is saying - yes all those micro decisions are great
> so that everyone is on the same page when you get to a release, but...
> the only vote that binds the board and the foundation to the package is your
> project's release vote after the distribution package is rolled, and...
> that's what makes this the ASF's release, and not Remy's personal liability.
> Believe me, we aren't nitpicking, I don't want Remy or any other committer
> to be hanging out there with liabilities for something distributed by any
> given project.
> > Anyone interested can monitor the developers list and
> > react promptly if he thinks there is a major outage.
> Trust, I do :)  Things are working great, and other than this issue with
> 6.0.1/6.0.2 I haven't seen any issues.  And belated congratulations on
> the new 6.0 baby!
> > One size doesn't fit all, and never will.
> On this, policy for handling a distribution package, there is only one size
> that ensures your collective work becomes the ASF's headache, should any
> 'bad thing' happen in the future with respect to intellectual property or
> liability.
> I'm just looking out for you guys, especially everyone with the gumption
> to handle the RM's job ;)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message