I'm -1 on releasing 1.0 without the memory leak fix. a lot of people have put a lot of time into making it work, and there are lots of multiproject builds out there now screaming for the leak to be fixed.
Hopefully I'll have some time soon to help out. That I'm writing this @ 1:30am on a sunday morning is evidence I haven't lately. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ "Eric Pugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/12/2003 05:38:27 AM: > I'd vote for Brett's approach that if he gets it fixed, great, otherwise > release it. The memory leak primarily affects large multiproject usages of > Maven, and in many ways, that is the part that really needs the stuff Jason > is working on to succeed. For building a single project, or just a couple > small onces, the leak is a pain, but managable. > > While the multiproject stuff is very cool, and very useful, as of 1.0 the > "sweet" spot of maven functionality is the single project build. That is > the easiest, least confusing part of Maven to understand. If we can cut a > 1.0 release, then that gives a version everybody can code plugins and jelly > scripts in etc. And with a 1.0 out, the core developers can move on, while > folks like me who like to write plugins can target a specific version, and > then the user base can really start to grow! > > My selfish desire to have 1.0 out is that I am writing an article on "How to > Write a Maven Plugin" and it would be nice to have the 1.0 release be out > when the article is published ;-) > > Eric > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 12:17 AM > > To: Maven Developers List > > Subject: RE: Mini roadmap > > > > > > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 18:18, Brett Porter wrote: > > > > This is not directed at you exclusively. It is directed at my > > > > first attempt, Dion's subsequent attempt and your attempt. > > > > The problem with the attempts is that the core is so gory > > > > that collaboration is difficult at best. > > > > > > I understand - I really meant to explain why it is > > currently stalled. > > > > > > > I approach I want to take is the one that is fastest in > > > > releasing 1.0 which I would say is releasing what we have and > > > > moving on to the new stuff. I am still going to push stuff > > > > from my branch into the release and I'm sure you will too but > > > > I don't think there is any reason in pursuing the branches > > > > anymore at this point. > > > > > > I think I did a reasonable job of isolating the least risky > > part of the job > > > while still removing the leak and doing it. It is -very > > close- to working > > > with everything again, so I'd prefer to stick it out. Let's > > say until the > > > end of next week. If I'm still stuck on the same problem by > > then, then I'll > > > abandon it, roll in whatever is useful back to HEAD and > > we'll release it as > > > RC2 as is, leaks and all, then start learning the new code :) > > > > Sounds reasonable, even over the next couple weeks is fine. > > > > > - Brett > > -- > > jvz. > > > > Jason van Zyl > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://tambora.zenplex.org > > > > In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational > > and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. > > > > -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
