Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of yoavshapira@gmail.com
 designates 72.14.214.230 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=PWw6iVyQXqhDOfioYQ3FKwXlSTZdED2JGNlDrTM2aIbDA+JIE4H72eJVHy0XIiQZUCgQI8EHRY5ffV0ciTZo8gAkqNeLeIIPX4U2jBm65fsdB7mDFwAjA1bF1UulCNf0zCZJIdE/mwB3AqTr/0qqd0C0FezPZjWVYMGW3i9VeuQ=
Message-ID: <db94f1a0611171335y7b406c77hb609d2be3ecdd8f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:35:54 -0500
From: "Yoav Shapira" <yoavs@apache.org>
Sender: yoavshapira@gmail.com
To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Tomcat 6.0.1 alpha
In-Reply-To: <455E27CB.4010903@rowe-clan.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <455321F9.4040105@apache.org> <455D850D.5080206@rowe-clan.net>
	 <455DAFF8.2070601@apache.org> <455E27CB.4010903@rowe-clan.net>

Hi,
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?

Yoav


On 11/17/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> 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: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org