[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
as well as the problems which started this whole
thing.
[ ] 0. Whatever.
[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
I agree with Remy: We must find a process that really work normally
quick and
can handle conflicts fair.
Peter
Am 23.09.2007 um 11:09 schrieb Remy Maucherat:
Mark Thomas wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
With the following caveats:
- There is only one dev branch. I am -1 for creating separate dev
branches for 3.3.x, 4.1.x, 5.0.x and 5.5.x on the grounds it is
too much
overhead for branches that are in maintenance mode where 99% of the
patches will be ported from 6.x
- Where a patch for 3, 4 or 5 is required that just doesn't make
sense
in the dev branch then the patch is applied using RTC.
- We review this process in 3 months time to see if it is
providing the
expected benefits without excessive overheads.
- We improve the "Which version?" web page to make clear which
branches
are supported and at what level. I'll start a wiki page as a draft
of this.
- The "Get involved" pages are updated to document this process
Some points of my own:
- I think my proposed process was more adapted to the Tomcat situation
- The way Jim rushed his vote seems to shortcut any possibility of
me to present a vote at the moment (which is fairly annoying as I
spent weeks discussing details and integrating changes)
- I am not aware of any ASF rule specifying that a project cannot
define its own release process
Since it does most of what I suggested and there was no "this will
not be changeable through further discussions and votes", I did
vote in favor of it. I would be willing to revisit it later since I
doubt it is well suited to the size of the Tomcat community and the
way it works.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
