I think it's a good idea too. I could sign the 2.2.0 zip and publish it to the mirrors. I want to add the 2.2 PDF docs to it first though. Then everything for the last DAO release (including docs) would be in one place.
Sound like a plan? Jeff On 12/2/06, Brandon Goodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that would be good (of course) :D. Brandon On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > That's a great point. I've had similar discussions. > > How about this: Let's do the vote for 2.2. GA right now. Assuming it > passes (I don't see why not considering how long it's been out), we update > 2.1.7 to 2.2 on the website by Monday. > > Then, next Friday (7 days) we start the vote for 2.3 GA and give it 7 > more days to settle. Within two weeks we'll have a 2.2 and a 2.3 GA. > > I agree that we should probably GA 2.2 because people are already using > it, but also because it's the last DAO release...that way we have a GA'd > final DAO. > > Sound good? > > Clinton > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm fine with pushing 2.3. But, I had a conversation on the list with > > someone who feared upgrading to 2.2 because it wasn't GA. This was, > > apparently, a company policy. They need a feature that is available in > > 2.2 but will not upgrade because it is not GA. If we do not make 2.2GA then their company policy will continue to hold them up. I guess I don't > > see a reason why we wouldn't make it GA. It has been available for some time > > with fewer bugs than 2.1.7. If I were to blow off any release I'd blow > > off 2.1.7 because it conatins more bugs than 2.2. > > > > Brandon > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > My vote is to leave it the way it is. My conservative, pragmatic > > > and adventurous sides are all satisfied by having a single GA release as > > > well as the latest "Beta" release available for download. 2.2 is > > > available in the past releases if people want it. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Clinton > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this one: > > > > > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html > > > > > > > > A great example of selective memory on my part :) > > > > > > > > Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to. But maybe we > > > > should let the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days. If it looks > > > > like it will fly, then we could do the 2.3 GA vote a little > > > > sooner. The major thing in 2.3 was prepared statement caching and > > > > I know there's already been some public testing of it. Most of the fixes I > > > > did were for esoteric issues. I think 2.3 is pretty solid. > > > > > > > > Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the mirrors? That > > > > wouldn't take much effort now that I know how to sign releases (it was a > > > > strange trip into command line hacker heaven). > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was: > > > > > > > > > > "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release makes it > > > > > to GA. The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible. We could vote for GA > > > > > on 2.2. right now actually. " > > > > > > > > > > So a little closer to what Brandon is suggesting. However, I'm > > > > > more interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting > > > > > 2.3 to GA. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Clinton > > > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > We discussed this some weeks ago. IIRC, Clinton wanted to do > > > > > > a new release rather than voting for GA on 2.2. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been > > > > > > > available for some time and contains several bug fixes over > > > > > > > 2.1.7. I would also say that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The > > > > > > > other thought is that there is no guarantee that 2.3 will be > > > > > > > GA quality after we get it out there for 2 weeks, however unlikely that may > > > > > > > be. Thanks for getting this all together! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything > > > > > > > > signed and checksummed. Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the > > > > > > > > .../dist directories, so I'm stuck right now. I've sent a note to infra@ > > > > > > > > and as soon as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able > > > > > > > > to publish the release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the > > > > > > > > Apache mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release > > > > > > > > policy according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks > > > > > > > > ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My release plan looks like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors. 2.3 will > > > > > > > > superceed 2.2, so no need to post it > > > > > > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release > > > > > > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is > > > > > > > > posted > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done > > > > > > > > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
