Is this an official vote? If so...
+1
On 12/2/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sold. +1
On 12/2/06, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 2.2 GA 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
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
