qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Rolke <cro...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Stop publishing release artefacts for unmaintained components (was Re: 0.10 release update - RC1 and status)
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:36:45 GMT
+1 +1 +1

When this is approved I'll fix the picture in qpid/doc/dev-readme

-Chuck


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gordon Sim" <gsim@redhat.com>
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:36:37 PM
> Subject: [VOTE] Stop publishing release artefacts for unmaintained components (was Re:
0.10 release update - RC1 and
> status)
> On 03/18/2011 03:56 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Robert Godfrey wrote:
> >
> >> I know Gordon said:
> >>
> >>
> >> "Specifically I'd suggest that unless anyone has specific updates
> >> to the
> >> following artefacts - and volunteers to verify the artefact for the
> >> release
> >> - we remove them from the published list:
> >>
> >> qpid-dotnet-0-8-0.10-beta.zip
> >> qpid-dotnet-0-10-0.10-beta.
> >> zip
> >> qpid-ruby-0.10-beta.tar.gz
> >>
> >> This will avoid giving false impressions about ongoing maintenance
> >> for
> >> these
> >> clients"
> >>
> >> But I think that if we are going to actually do this, we should
> >> formally
> >> vote for it, and move the codebases for these artefacts into an
> >> "attic"
> >> directory or similar.
> >>
> >> I'm not against removing unloved and unmaintained code... but I do
> >> feel that
> >> we should vote before adding or removing artefacts to/from the
> >> release.
> >
> > Okay. I'll restore these to RC2 unless there's a vote to remove
> > them.
> 
> I would find it hard to vote for a new release that contained those
> artefacts unless someone could justify it through a list of changes
> made[1] (this would also have the benefit of identifying possible
> maintainers for those components to whom questions of support could be
> directed). I.e. I think that a vote will be required to keep them in,
> and it would be unfortunate to stall the whole release.
> 
> However I do agree that some more explicit 'consensus gathering' on
> this
> is important since my previous mail did not result in any comments or
> responses. Therefore...
> 
> ...please reply with your +1 / -1 vote, or cross one of the boxes for
> each of the cases below:
> 
> (a)
> 
> [ ] +1, qpid-dotnet-0-8-0.10 SHOULD be removed from the 0.10 release
> [ ] -1, qpid-dotnet-0-8-0.10 should NOT be removed from the 0.10
> release (please list changes it includes to support this vote)
> 
> (b)
> 
> [ ] +1, qpid-dotnet-0-10-0.10 SHOULD be removed from the 0.10 release
> [ ] -1, qpid-dotnet-0-10-0.10 should NOT be removed from the 0.10
> release (please list changes it includes to support this vote)
> 
> (c)
> 
> [ ] +1, qpid-ruby-0.10 SHOULD be removed from the 0.10 release
> [ ] -1, qpid-ruby-0.10 should NOT be removed from the 0.10 release
> (please list changes it includes to support this vote)
> 
> 
> [1] My JIRA query may be at fault, but I can't see any JIRA for any of
> those components fixed for 0.9/0.10
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message