On 04/10/2016 09:11, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> ...I'm wondering about expanding "... generate a release." to "... generate
>> the complete set of artifacts required for a release."
>
> Works for me, it's more precise.
Done.
Mark
---
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> ...I'm wondering about expanding "... generate a release." to "... generate
> the complete set of artifacts required for a release."
Works for me, it's more precise.
-Bertrand
--
On 04/10/2016 08:22, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> I'd like to propose the following addition to the project maturity model.
>>
>> RE50
>> The release process is documented and repeatable to the extent that
>> someone new to the p
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> I'd like to propose the following addition to the project maturity model.
>
> RE50
> The release process is documented and repeatable to the extent that
> someone new to the project is able to independently generate a release
> build.
On 9/29/16 6:25 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> After a discussion on the general@incubator.a.o mailing list [1], I'd
>> like to propose the following addition to the project maturity model.
>>
>> RE50
>> The release process is doc
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> ...I'm not sure what is the deal with the BASIC line numbering idea of
> RE* -
Hehe, that idea came from someone who has actually been doing BASIC in
the past...on a Sharp calculator that was passed around during boring
classes in
"release artifacts"? Or does that hint to much of Maven?
We can do it as two different requirements..
RE50 - independendly generate a source archive (RE10).
RE60 - independently generate any convenience binaries (RE40)
I'm not sure what is the deal with the BASIC line numbering idea of
RE* - p
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> All,
>
> After a discussion on the general@incubator.a.o mailing list [1], I'd
> like to propose the following addition to the project maturity model.
>
> RE50
> The release process is documented and repeatable to the extent that
> someone new
On 28 September 2016 at 19:26, Joan Touzet wrote:
> Big +1 here. Projects that can't be repeatably built risk decay
> faster than those that can.
+1 - as long as it is documented it doesn't matter if it says "copy
the file three times while jumping high in the air".
Obviously automated build/rel
Big +1 here. Projects that can't be repeatably built risk decay
faster than those that can.
Given the needs of some build chains (especially Windows, in my
experience) I also endorse the fact that this does not specifically
call out /automated/ builds, though projects should be striving to
achieve
That is an interesting one. And funny enough, there are two parts of that
IMHO.
1. Check out from source control repository, and re-produce a source
release build, resulting in a releasable artifact.
2. That the built artifact can be downloaded, and built for a given
platform/deployment.
In my p
11 matches
Mail list logo