> I could be wrong here, but I do not think a rc4 is required, unless we > would like one. I also prefer a 2.0 sooner, and a 2.0.1 if necessary.
We have only two pending bug reports targeted for the 2.0 final. As soon as they are dealt with we could make a cut http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26500 http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26382 However, some issues still remain: do we release 2.0 as Jakarta HttpClient or Jakarta Commons HttpClient? This is not just a matter of having a shorter name. This also affects package naming (org.apache.commons.httpclient vs org.apache.httpclient) which in its turn affects binary compatibility with the previous releases. I am afraid we have no other option but release 2.0 final and then deal with the promotion to the Jakarta level. Anyone sees that differently? Oleg -----Original Message----- From: Michael Becke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 15:17 To: Commons HttpClient Project Subject: Re: Promote HttpClient out of commons? Eric, These are good questions, and I think they summarize well the current discussion. > Should HttpClient be promoted to a Jakarta project? > - Yes, that would seem to make sense, given the separate mailing list, > the list of other "commons" libraries it depends upon, the separate > mailing list, and the bugzilla needs, which all point to its slightly > "heavier" nature than other commons projects. At this point I would agree. It seems very likely that we will move in this direction. Arguments to the contrary are still welcome though. > Should HttpClient be a TLP? > - Don't think so. Too much extra infrastructure, not much extra > benefit. Though moving to a TLP sounds exciting, I agree that it may be too much now. In particular I think that HttpClient is not quite mature enough for this status. Also, I do not think the developer community is quite large enough to support this yet either. Becoming a TLP could be a long term goal. As others have mentioned there are certainly possible HttpClient sub-projects (WebDAV, Gnutella, Http Cache). > When can HttpClient 2.0 ship? > - Although I think Oleg is being diligent in wanting to have a > road-map in place for shipping 2.0, the contrary point is that as > open-source software, the road-map is dependent on the interests that > drive the product forward. As such, it is entirely unpredictable. I > would like to see/hear Oleg's ideas about where we should be going, > since his ideas will probably be quite helpful to the rest of us, but > I'm not sure we need to hold up the 2.0 release for that. Email or a > web-site posting would work just as well for that. Hopefully soon. A road map would be good, but I think we still need to debate if we want to hold up 2.0 before it's done. > - I seem to recall that a bug was actually reported against 2.0rc3, > which means that we need to have a 2.0rc4, doesn't it? I think we > should be absolutely ruthless, that if a bug is not reported within > the appropriate window, we should name whichever rcX release the > final. If need be, we can always come up with a 2.0.1 release that > patches any future discovered bugs. I could be wrong here, but I do not think a rc4 is required, unless we would like one. I also prefer a 2.0 sooner, and a 2.0.1 if necessary. Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
