Yes, I think we should do point releases if necessary. The PMC have also been discussing future versioning strategy so that what a beta and an RC are clearer for future releases.
Cheers, Brett > -----Original Message----- > From: Heritier Arnaud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 22 April 2004 6:31 PM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: RE: [Q] Setting a property so that it's visible from > another plugin > > > Did you already define if after the 1.0 release we will apply > a release strategy like httpd, tomcat and others ?? It will > help us to produce distributions more often. Another interest > is to not afraid users with terms like RC or beta. > > > > Arnaud. > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoy� : jeudi 22 avril 2004 09:04 > � : 'Maven Developers List' > Objet : RE: [Q] Setting a property so that it's visible from > another plugin > > > > production and you just simply can't break them completely, > > even though it's a beta or rc... :-) > > You don't have to upgrade either. > > > At least, we should make an attempt not to break them. For > > Have I broken anything since rc1 that hasn't been fixed? My > goal was 100% compatibility and I've at least gotten that at > work. The 2 things that broke in RC2 have been fixed in RC3 > and won't happen again. > > > example, we could instead create a jelly taglib. This taglib > > we could check whether such class exists. If it does, use it. > > If not, use some jelly to set the property. > > Ok, so we add such a tag to RC3 and use it in all the > plugins. Wait a second... None of them work with RC2 any > more! Isn't that exactly what you were trying to prevent? :D > > Realistically, nobody would want to stay on RC2 or less when > 1.0 is out, because it is backwards compatible, but its got a > whole load of bugfixes. There's no point wasting time to > support it at that level. Now that we are close to a release > of 1.0 and have applied enough polish to make backwards > compatibility achievable, we definitely should strive to do so. > > > Alternatively we could simply provide a patch for versions < > > rc3 in the form of a jar to drop in one's own mavenhome/lib > > for example. > > It's called maven-1.0-rc3.tar.gz. If you are replacing > maven.jar that's what you've got anyway (Except with newer plugins). > > > It's more complex for us to manage but we should acknowledge > > that some people have been using maven in production for some > > time and they may not be able to switch quickly from, say, > > beta 10 to rc3. > > I agree with you in principle but I've got no idea what you > are actually talking about in context (we were talking about > plugins using a new tag - you can't introduce a compatibility > layer in the plugin really). > > If people want to stay on beta-10, that's their choice. I did > so with -7 for until -10 because it was moving too much. > They'll just miss out on the new plugin changes and that's > also their choice. It's ridiculous that we attempt to support > something that old with the limited resources we have > available to work on 1.0. > > I think everyone still on b10 is waiting for 1.0 before > making their changes for exactly this reason. > > - Brett > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
