I have just started doing just that:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/2oH0Ag
EdB
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Justin Mclean
> wrote:
>> ...Given it looks like both Alex and Eric has very different views of this
>> no RC p
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> ...Given it looks like both Alex and Eric has very different views of this no
> RC process I suggest that they
> get it documented...
Documenting your release process sounds like a fantastic idea indeed ;-)
-Bertrand
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> ...What I will try to do in the next few weeks is
> to move slowly but surely towards the vote. Step by step. At each
> point the community gets the chance to participate, but after a
> certain deadline, the window for that particular step cl
Hi,
Given it looks like both Alex and Eric has very different views of this no RC
process I suggest that they get it documented, that will save any future
confusion and conflict around the process in the future. Is that not a
reasonable suggestion?
I'm also yet to see any ideas on how to impro
+1 to end this discussion.
Harbs
Gentlemen,
You're doing it again.
EdB
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> We did not deal with cross-domain security in the TDF 1.0 or 1.1,
>> otherwise you would have been more familiar with it in 1.2.
>
> And there was no need to do so either in 1.2, the default
Hi,
> We did not deal with cross-domain security in the TDF 1.0 or 1.1,
> otherwise you would have been more familiar with it in 1.2.
And there was no need to do so either in 1.2, the default sandboxing method is
the most secure way of loading 3rd party content. 3rd party support was
discussed
On 11/30/14, 3:47 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> The notion that you can compare the timelines or the number of RCs of
>>two
>> different point releases of the same product
>
>It was the same product, similar scope of changes and you get similar
>results if you include the 1.0 release int
Hi,
Look like we now have two versions of the no RC process. The one Eric describes
is not the same process we used on TourDeFlex. Perhaps this process should be
documented somewhere so we are all on the same page. This will avoid conflict
to what people think the process is and isn't.
> It's
Hi,
> The notion that you can compare the timelines or the number of RCs of two
> different point releases of the same product
It was the same product, similar scope of changes and you get similar results
if you include the 1.0 release into the mix (which had fewer RCs than I was
expecting). I
> If it wasn’t clear when to call the vote, then that’s a topic worth
> improving on for the next release. One suggestion would be for folks to
> unofficially vote with a -1, 0, or +1 in the discuss thread so RM can know
> where they stand.
It's time to call the vote when the RM thinks it's time
On 11/29/14, 11:29 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The aim here is to make future releases easier and save everyone time. We
>tried it and it didn't work out well, let see if we can fix it
>(suggestions anyone?) or just drop it and go back to the normal release
>process.
The notion that you
Hi,
> The third option is to wait for another couple/few releases before having
> this discussion.
The installer is well overdue for a release and has several important fixes
that will help users. Anyone want to take on the role of RM and try the no RC
process out on that?
Justin
The third option is to wait for another couple/few releases before having this
discussion.
Hi,
The aim here is to make future releases easier and save everyone time. We tried
it and it didn't work out well, let see if we can fix it (suggestions anyone?)
or just drop it and go back to the normal release process.
Justin
Justin,
The tone of your email is very confrontational. Very much: "See, I was
right all along, I tried it and it doesn't work." You should really
take more care when writing your emails. The way you wrote this one
gives the impression it is meant to start another 'endless'
discussion, which I'm s
Hi,
Was looking at the last two TourDeFlex releases, one which used the normal
process and one that used the no RC process.
For Tour De Flex 1.1 using the normal process:
Release 24th Sept
RC2 12th Sept (4 PMC, 2 non binding)
RC1 4th Sept (4 votes)
For Tour De Flex 1.2 for using the no RC proce
17 matches
Mail list logo
