buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexis Midon" <alexismi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release process [WAS Re: gradle]
Date Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:57:15 GMT
it's more about us as users than about PMC members (despite my respect ;).
Solution #1 would bring confusion I think and might piss off many users.

And what if the PMC vote is negative? One non-apache release 1.3 would be in
the wild, available on Rubyforge while some updates would have to be done to
prepare a new PMC vote.
would you increment the version then?

I'd rather consider rubyforge as simple file server, and stick to the apache
process.




On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Yoav Shapira <yoavs@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
> >  1.  Create all package files, changelog and signature.
> >  2.  Move those over to a public folder, where we can vote on them.
> >  3.  Following buildr-dev vote, upload these to RubyForge.
> >  4.  Following PMC vote, upload these to Apache.
>
> I really think we should have the PMC vote first.  Otherwise you
> unnecessarily get into gray area and might piss off some PMC members.
> Why take the unnecessary risk?
>
> Yoav
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message