On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:16 PM, sebb wrote:
> Sigs and hashes OK; tgz and zip agree with each other.
>
> However, the source archive does not agree with the SVN tag - the
> versions are different in various pom.xml files.
Can you give me one example ? The verious pom.xml should have version
id as
- Original Message
> From: Noel J. Bergman
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 7:50:42 PM
> Subject: RE: Making up policy on the fly
>
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ant elder wrote:
>
> > > - make complying with "best practices" a graduation requirement not a
- Original Message
> From: Noel J. Bergman
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 7:50:42 PM
> Subject: RE: Making up policy on the fly
>
> Ted Leung wrote:
>
> > Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > > If we tell you something is best-practice, why do *we* have to
> > >
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ant elder wrote:
> > - make complying with "best practices" a graduation requirement not a
> > release requirement
> This sounds silly as complying with best practices is neither a graduation
> requirement nor a release requirement.
The pejorative aside, I concur that Ant
Quoting various in a recent thread ...
> Whims my ass
I'll ask that the rhetoric and tension level be kept low, please. By all
parties.
> People are free to speak their minds and argue out their points as they
> see fit. What actually counts are the votes
> Anyone who easily gets frustrated w
Ted Leung wrote:
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > If we tell you something is best-practice, why do *we* have to
> > defend ourselves?
Who is WE and YOU? WE the ASF? WE the Infra Team? YOU a podling? YOU a
fellow ASF Member?
> > Shouldn't people *know* what the actual position of the foundation
> >
On 21/08/2009, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
> > From: sebb
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 11:02:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: RM procedural docs
>
> >
> > On 21/08/2009, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > > I wrote some procedural docs for the RM
- Original Message
> From: sebb
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 11:02:12 AM
> Subject: Re: RM procedural docs
>
> On 21/08/2009, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > I wrote some procedural docs for the RM role:
> >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releas
On 21/08/2009, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> I wrote some procedural docs for the RM role:
>
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-manager
>
> Comments/criticisms/flames welcome.
Generally agree, but not sure what you mean by "the project's release
documentatio
I wrote some procedural docs for the RM role:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-manager
Comments/criticisms/flames welcome.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubato
On 21/08/2009, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2009, at 6:05 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> > On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> >
> > > About that assembly issue, running mvn assembly:assembly on the
> > > assembly... I don't really think that makes sense.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The archive is
On 21/08/2009, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
> > From: sebb
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
>
> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:15:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: Making up policy on the fly
> >
>
> > On 21/08/2009, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > > - Original Message
>
On Aug 21, 2009, at 6:05 AM, sebb wrote:
On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere wrote:
About that assembly issue, running mvn assembly:assembly on the
assembly... I don't really think that makes sense.
The archive is supposed to contain the *full* source, i.e. whatever
was used to create the
- Original Message
> From: sebb
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:15:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Making up policy on the fly
>
> On 21/08/2009, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > - Original Message
> >
> > > From: ant elder
> > > To: general@incubator.apach
On 21/08/2009, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
> > From: ant elder
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
>
> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 2:32:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: Making up policy on the fly
>
>
> > Several improvements have been suggested on this thread so far, the
>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: ant elder
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 2:32:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: Making up policy on the fly
>
>> Several improvements have been suggested on this thread so far, t
On 21/08/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM, sebb wrote:
> > On 21/08/2009, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> >> > There is only a combined source/binary archive, which is not standard
> practise.
> >> > All other projec
- Original Message
> From: ant elder
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 2:32:39 AM
> Subject: Re: Making up policy on the fly
> Several improvements have been suggested on this thread so far, the
> two mains ones are:
>
> - hold the release votes on the
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 21/08/2009, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM, sebb wrote:
>> > There is only a combined source/binary archive, which is not standard
>> practise.
>> > All other projects release a source archive; almost all also release
On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> About that assembly issue, running mvn assembly:assembly on the
> assembly... I don't really think that makes sense.
>
The archive is supposed to contain the *full* source, i.e. whatever
was used to create the binary.
It must be possible to recreate
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Martijn
Dashorst wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> Also, if we do the making best practices a graduation requirement
>> instead of a release requirement that might alleviate the poor mentor
>> issue as its easy enough to check the latest
On 21/08/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>
> > So sebb, what tool are you using there to come up with all those issues ;-)
>
>
> Scripts to download and unpack the archives.
> Scripts to check sigs and hashes.
>
> WinMerge and
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/p
About that assembly issue, running mvn assembly:assembly on the
assembly... I don't really think that makes sense.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> So sebb, what tool are you using there to come up with all those issues ;-)
>
> Scripts
On 21/08/2009, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, ant elder wrote:
> > Also, if we do the making best practices a graduation requirement
> > instead of a release requirement that might alleviate the poor mentor
> > issue as its easy enough to check the latest release at
On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> So sebb, what tool are you using there to come up with all those issues ;-)
Scripts to download and unpack the archives.
Scripts to check sigs and hashes.
WinMerge and
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/tools/releases/compare_dirs.pl
Ey
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, ant elder wrote:
> Also, if we do the making best practices a graduation requirement
> instead of a release requirement that might alleviate the poor mentor
> issue as its easy enough to check the latest release at graduation
> time and vote against graduation until
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Snitkovsky,
Martin wrote:
> The Wink community voted on and approved the release of Apache Wink 0.1
>
> The voting mail thread can be viewed at: http://tiny.cc/es4Zu
>
>
>
> We would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this
> release.
>
>
>
>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> My concern is more that of 'complacent mentors'... How many people
>> vote +1 even if they have not scrutinized the release requirements?
>> IMHO, too many... So, would that mean that so
So sebb, what tool are you using there to come up with all those issues ;-)
On the distribution file(s). Is this standard practice described
somewhere. Can you suggest a model project that is using maven? If we
have binaries separated should we also provide libraries in that zip?
Since we moved t
On 21/08/2009, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM, sebb wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > AIUI, all proposed releases must be voted on by the IPMC, not just by
> > the podlings.
> >
>
>
> And they still would be as the only binding votes are from IPMC
> members, and thats just the same
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 21 Aug 2009, at 08:58, ant elder wrote:
>
>> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
>> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
>> poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now w
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Rainer Döbele wrote:
>
> I agree with Martijn's view on the first release of a podling which is much
> more critical than subsequent releases.
>
> But for subsequent releases the voting process should be simplified in one
> way or the other. At the moment we have
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM, sebb wrote:
> -1
>
> AIUI, all proposed releases must be voted on by the IPMC, not just by
> the podlings.
>
And they still would be as the only binding votes are from IPMC
members, and thats just the same as the situation with the poddling
new committer and ppmc
On 21/08/2009, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> > There is only a combined source/binary archive, which is not standard
> practise.
> > All other projects release a source archive; almost all also release a
> > separate binary archive.
>
>
> FWIW, Apache
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:40 PM, J Aaron Farr wrote:
>>
>> On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder wrote:
>>
>>> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
>>> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> There is only a combined source/binary archive, which is not standard
> practise.
> All other projects release a source archive; almost all also release a
> separate binary archive.
FWIW, Apache Wicket has released combined binary/source archives sin
On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> the tag is located here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/empire-db/tags/empire-db-parent-2.0.5-incubating
>
> This is because our parent module is called empire-db-parent. Is this a
> problem?
I don't have a problem with the name.
>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:40 AM, J Aaron Farr wrote:
>
> On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder wrote:
>
>> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
>> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
>> poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now
On 21/08/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 21/08/2009, Rainer Döbele wrote:
> >
> > The Empire-db community has completed working on Release 2.0.5 and is now
> looking for approval of the IPMC to publish the release.
> > So far the release has been approved by Empire-db committers, but due to
> vacat
the tag is located here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/empire-db/tags/empire-db-parent-2.0.5-incubating
This is because our parent module is called empire-db-parent. Is this a problem?
Francis
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:56 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 21/08/2009, Rainer Döbele wrote:
>>
>>
Janne Jalkanen wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >Janne Jalkanen wrote:
> >>
> >>Yes, we're keeping our task list in JIRA instead of the web page,
> >>simply because it's a lot easier, and encourages participation more
> >>than a static HTML file somewhere.
> >
> >I know. However, that page is what
On 21 Aug 2009, at 08:58, ant elder wrote:
What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
poddling dev list vote followed by an general@ vote? This
On 21/08/2009, Rainer Döbele wrote:
>
> The Empire-db community has completed working on Release 2.0.5 and is now
> looking for approval of the IPMC to publish the release.
> So far the release has been approved by Empire-db committers, but due to
> vacation time and other circumstances the Me
-1
AIUI, all proposed releases must be voted on by the IPMC, not just by
the podlings.
You cannot expect all IPMC members and other interested parties to
subscribe to all the Incubator mailing lists. It's wrong to hold the
votes in "semi-secret" on a different list.
On 21/08/2009, Rainer Döbele
I agree with Martijn's view on the first release of a podling which is much
more critical than subsequent releases.
But for subsequent releases the voting process should be simplified in one way
or the other. At the moment we have to get approval from our Mentors first
before we can move to th
The Empire-db community has completed working on Release 2.0.5 and is now
looking for approval of the IPMC to publish the release.
So far the release has been approved by Empire-db committers, but due to
vacation time and other circumstances the Mentors are unable to review the
release. Hence i
-1
I try to check my podlings' releases personally, but I usually fail
where Sebb shines :). It is much easier to guide the addition of new
committers/ppmc members than it is to properly vet a *first* release.
The first release of any podling is an exercise of patience and
frustration, but it doe
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:40 PM, J Aaron Farr wrote:
>
> On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder wrote:
>
>> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
>> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
>> poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder wrote:
>
>> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
>> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
>> poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
>> poddling dev list vote f
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:32 PM, ant elder wrote:
> - hold the release votes on the poddling mailing lists not general@
> - make complying with "best practices" a graduation requirement not a
> release requirement
+1, with a big IF; there are no legal requirements (which needs to be
well defined)
On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder wrote:
> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
> poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
> poddling dev list vote followed by an general@ vote
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:58 AM, ant elder wrote:
> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
> poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
> poddling dev list vote followed by an gene
52 matches
Mail list logo
