On 4/14/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/14/07, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...in the Ivy podling we are currently preparing a release, which I hope
> we'll be soon able to submit to the IPMC vote. We've called this release
> 2.0.0-alpha-1-incubating, since
On 4/14/07, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...in the Ivy podling we are currently preparing a release, which I hope
we'll be soon able to submit to the IPMC vote. We've called this release
2.0.0-alpha-1-incubating, since for us too it's primarily a release made to
validate our release p
On Apr 14, 2007, at 3:45 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Please take my comments as trying to really understand your concerns.
sure thing! Do note they're not really *my* concerns, they're ASF
concerns explained as far as I understand them. Please do note that
I'm not quite an expert on any of t
On Apr 13, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
And this is why we asked the IPMC to ratify the distribution package,
not to release it. Minor language stuff, big consequences.
Ah!
rat·i·fy (rāt'ə-fī') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. rat·i·fied, rat·i·fy·ing, rat·i·fies
To approve
On 4/12/07, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A release can be called wicket-incubating-DO_NOT_USE_THIS_CODE-this-
is-a-legal-reasons-only-release-1.3.0-alpha.zip and we can take care
to not publicize that we release things, but if it is a release, it
still needs to be distributed to the gen
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> If the podling discovers something else that's wrong, or for some other
> reason decides not to release, are you suggesting that somehow the IPMC
> is going to go and release it anyway?
To clarify - the RM, whomever created the tarball, always has the last
word until th
Hi Leo,
Please take my comments as trying to really understand your concerns.
On Apr 12, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
There's just this one little tidbit - if the IPMC votes to
*release* something, that something should then actually be
released. "Release" has a specific meaning and
And this is why we asked the IPMC to ratify the distribution package,
not to release it. Minor language stuff, big consequences.
Anyhow, the next release seems to be after we stabilize our api (just
did a package rename from wicket to org.apache.wicket, and the xml
namespace is also changed from
On 4/12/07, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...There's just this one little tidbit - if the IPMC votes to *release*
something, that something should then actually be released. "Release"
has a specific meaning and we (have to) do "distribution at no charge
to the general public" of them. I
On 4/12/07, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SNIP ...
I'm not convinced we actually say (or have always consistently said)
"REQUIRED to build a release". IIRC Apache Directory might have
graduated without building a release.
Sure it did. Version 0.8 of ApacheDS was released through the
On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On 4/4/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there have been changes since the release was cut, a new release
must IMHO be created, so that people can vote (on the wicket lists
first, and then come back here) on the correct one.
On 4/6/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 06 April 2007 15:55, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> most critical issues i encounter are issues with source. the source
> can be checked at any time. potential issues with source should be
> addressed as soon as possible. (and yes, i
On Friday 06 April 2007 15:55, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> most critical issues i encounter are issues with source. the source
> can be checked at any time. potential issues with source should be
> addressed as soon as possible. (and yes, i know henri arrived here
> long before me.)
>
> the best
On 4/4/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:54 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> IMHO we need to alter the process so that we have an explicit audit
> when the community feels (by vote) that it has a build process in
> place. the code doesn't need to be ready
[Should be off-line, but I think we programmer's need to be pointed into some
cultural enlightenment every now and then to broaden our horizons.]
On Friday 06 April 2007 11:44, Craig L Russell wrote:
> But please send a link to the meaning of kreti & pleti! I love
> learning new idioms and it'
Hi Niclas,
On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Thursday 05 April 2007 05:08, Craig L Russell wrote:
I have a hard time understanding how a podling can consider itself
ready for graduation without having anything worth sharing, and don't
understand what the point is of having a
On Thursday 05 April 2007 05:08, Craig L Russell wrote:
> I have a hard time understanding how a podling can consider itself
> ready for graduation without having anything worth sharing, and don't
> understand what the point is of having an audit of anything short of
> a build artifact.
Assu
I have a hard time understanding how a podling can consider itself
ready for graduation without having anything worth sharing, and don't
understand what the point is of having an audit of anything short of
a build artifact.
Yes, that would be strange :) However, in the case of Wicket, we are
tal
IMHO the current process is fine but needs to be documented better.
Podlings should be encouraged to release stuff that they think is
usable outside their small world of developers who check out from svn
and build from source. The incubator is set up to review and approve
releases without passing
On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:54 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 4/4/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> Also, the whole idea of the Incubator is to
>> withhold releases from the general public.
No, the idea of the incubator is to ma
On 4/4/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> Also, the whole idea of the Incubator is to
>> withhold releases from the general public.
>
> Just to clarify - I don't think 'withhold' is a good description.
> Release - but with no specif
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Also, the whole idea of the Incubator is to
withhold releases from the general public.
Just to clarify - I don't think 'withhold' is a good description.
Release - but with no specific expectation of persistence at the
ASF is probably a bette
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Also, the whole idea of the Incubator is to
> withhold releases from the general public.
Just to clarify - I don't think 'withhold' is a good description.
Release - but with no specific expectation of persistence at the
ASF is probably a better description. E.g. "here's
23 matches
Mail list logo
