Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
OK, no problem. So what's our consensus process going forward? Same
as before but with a formal vote to cut the release, and same
announcements but calling it a "release candidate" instead of a
"release" ?
0. usual banter asking 'suppose trunk|branch x is good to go?
Hi,
OK, no problem. So what's our consensus process going forward? Same
as before but with a formal vote to cut the release, and same
announcements but calling it a "release candidate" instead of a
"release" ?
Yoav
On 4/19/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yoav Shapira wro
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Bill,
Yes, as long as it is not announced as the release, but announced as the
candidate, tarball, what have you. I noted specifically that Yoav sent this
to announce@ which is definately verboten, pre vote.
This might be a nitpick, but I believe I sent it to [EMAIL PRO
Bill,
> Yes, as long as it is not announced as the release, but announced as the
> candidate, tarball, what have you. I noted specifically that Yoav sent this
> to announce@ which is definately verboten, pre vote.
This might be a nitpick, but I believe I sent it to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROT
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hola,
I don't mind changing the process, but as the other Bill noted, what
we've been doing for a while is:
The process never changed: originally, I was releasing builds (= alpha
equivalents) that were then voted as "alpha, beta or stable" in a sing
The main idea is that once a tarball is placed in an
"official" download location, it should have the support
of the PMC behind it, and thus a vote. This is to avoid
people downloading it, using it, and considering it
as "really released" when it really isn't :)
However, 5.5.17 is noted as BETA s
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hola,
I don't mind changing the process, but as the other Bill noted, what
we've been doing for a while is:
The process never changed: originally, I was releasing builds (= alpha
equivalents) that were then voted as "alpha, beta or stable" in a single
subsequent vote. This
Yoav Shapira wrote:
We can codify it more formally in a VOTE thread from now on if need
be, I suppose there's no harm in that.
Although boring, if it's the ASF rule, there is no harm in that except
an additional "official" voting thread. Since like you said, we agree
on each release, the RM c
Hola,
I don't mind changing the process, but as the other Bill noted, what
we've been doing for a while is:
- Gather consensus in public on the dev list by asking "is this an OK
time for a release." We agree on a date and time. It's not a formal
[VOTE] thread, but we do this practically every ti
Bill Barker wrote:
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Whoa :) I don't see a vote thread?
alpha, beta, gamma, gold, it doesn't matter... any "tarball release" from
the
Apache Software Foundation must be preceeded by a vote. explanation>
Lo
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Whoa :) I don't see a vote thread?
>
> alpha, beta, gamma, gold, it doesn't matter... any "tarball release" from
> the
> Apache Software Foundation must be preceeded by a vote. explanation>
>
Long establishe
Whoa :) I don't see a vote thread?
alpha, beta, gamma, gold, it doesn't matter... any "tarball release" from the
Apache Software Foundation must be preceeded by a vote.
Bill
Yoav Shapira wrote:
The Apache Tomcat team is proud to announce the immediate availability
of Tomcat v5.5.17-beta. Th
12 matches
Mail list logo
