On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 13/03/2010, at 11:25 AM, Deng Ching wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Wendy Smoak <wsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Deng Ching <och...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> The Continuum 1.3.6 release candidate has been staged. > >>> This release includes 16 fixes. You can take a look at the release > notes > >>> here: > >> > >> +1 to release it, it's working fine for me. I downloaded all the > >> distribution binaries and checked signatures, then expanded the > >> tarball on OS X and gave the default config a run through and set up > >> distributed build with two agents, which also worked. > >> > >> We need to decide on the quality. > >> > >> While I very much want to get 1.3.x over with and I _am_ using it in > >> production, there are still some issues that I would not be thrilled > >> to see in a GA release (mainly in distributed build). :/ What do > >> others think? > >> > > > > I agree, there are a number of bugs in distributed builds which I think > > needs to be fixed for a GA release like the problem where some builds are > > being built in the wrong agent.. > > > > Should we label 1.3.6 as a Beta release? > > > > > Well I guess we already have :) > I'm sorry, I didn't wait.. no one was around so I just went ahead with it :) > > However, I'm confused because we've already had this discussion: > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/continuum-dev/201002.mbox/%3cf858d1b8-ddec-44b5-81d4-32fc65620...@apache.org%3e > > Wendy, Deng - please name the issues you are referring to. We can at least > document some limitations if we can't resolve them. > Here's one for me.. http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-2476 > At this point, I think perhaps we should rename 1.4.0 as 1.3.7 (GA), and > move to trunk (removing the continuum-1.3.x branch). There are 23 fixes on > trunk, some that have been there for a year, that aren't getting released > because we can't seem to decide to end the 1.3 cycle. Would others be ok > with that? > Wendy also suggested as an option that we leave 1.3.6 as beta then vote it up to GA quality if there are no major issues reported against it.. Thanks, Deng
