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 (athena.apache.org: domain of niall.pemberton@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.146.181 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=NMZDhyEu+ZtQ9Ol2Cw823kiTHNPGpzbmjsL1rXncJ/zEtxr51mrDkX0Tdxwx0NYakYjMmivL7GMhOFerz3vekhvI4IA8Uue1767Ndaya+Xf5GoZnve11T7wYIl+JLRtV/Aw7NDbq2cZHM5R/ul4H4G6SgYSCuGxHnxsej1kd2qk=
Message-ID: <55afdc850802051140h41299436t22bc0cd93d2f5be0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:40:14 +0000
From: "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release build 6.0.16
In-Reply-To: <47A8B177.9020300@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1201702866.9846.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <47A79D15.6010502@kippdata.de> <47A8331B.3020005@apache.org>
	 <47A8956D.9000205@kippdata.de> <47A8B177.9020300@apache.org>

On Feb 5, 2008 6:56 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
> Rainer Jung wrote:
> > Remy Maucherat wrote:
> >> Rainer Jung wrote:
> >>> Remy Maucherat schrieb:
> >>>> The candidates binaries are available here:
> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~remm/tomcat-6/v6.0.16/
> >>>>
> >>>> According to the release process, the 6.0.16 tag is:
> >>>> [ ] Broken
> >>>> [ ] Alpha
> >>>> [ ] Beta
> >>>> [X] Stable
> >>>>
> >>>> R=E9my
> >>>
> >>> One small note: there is a new Thumbs.db file in
> >>> server/webapps/host-manager/images which doesn't come from svn and
> >>> wasn't there in 6.0.14. I guess it was auto-generated by some of
> >>> those smart service on the build system and we don't really want it
> >>> in future releases.
> >>
> >> That's caused by me building on Windows [XP] for the Windows
> >> installer. I can redo the binaries before putting them in the wild,
> >> but obviously it shouldn't be a huge issue.
> >>
> >> R=E9my
> >
> > I would agree with keeping the files we used for testing. No need for
> > repackaging, ...
> <snip />
>
> As far as our voting goes, the only thing that matters is the source
> release.

This IMO is a distortion of ASF policy - which I believe is that
"every release needs the source - the binaries are a nice convenience"
- but you've extrapolated that into something different. If those
"convenience binaries" are provided as part of an official release
then they do need PMC approval:

http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what

Niall

> We are free to re-package the binaries as much, or as little, as
> we wish providing we don't modify the build script since that would be
> modifying the source.


> Personally, I would repackage it but I am not that bothered about it. I a=
m
> happy which ever way Remy chooses to go on this.
>
> Mark

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