I'm good with making 2.0.10-RC the head of 2.1.x. I guess I'd like to
see some sort of process on 2.1 where enhancements that aren't
necessarily 100% compatible can be added so some things can be changed
before the branch is considered completely stable. By releasing 2.1.0 I
think we'd be giving the wrong impression. So I would prefer that there
be some number of milestone releases before 2.10 is done. I'd expect 1
or two more 2.0.x releases while 2.1 is in this mode.
Ralph
John Casey wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to propose that we put together a plan for the next few
releases of Maven, and also a plan for what we're going to call them.
There has been quite a bit of discussion here, on IRC, and in the back
channels about how to structure this, so let's see if we can reach a
consensus.
To start, I'd personally prefer to see the code we current have in the
release process designated as 2.1.0. It's seen a lot of change to the
internal implementations, and while we've gone to great lengths to
ensure it's functionally compatible with 2.0.x, it contains a fairly
risky level of change for a revision release. This means that the
2.0.x branch would be rolled back to the 2.0.9 release, and we'd
proceed toward a 2.0.10 that fixes the worst of the regressions with a
minimal of code change. At that point, I'd prefer to see 2.0.x go into
end-of-life mode soon, with 2.1 and later replacing it.
From there, I'd propose that we make a plan. I think we have a long
list of features we'd like to implement and other features we'd really
like to reimplement. No doubt each of us has his/her favorites, but
what I'd like to suggest is using the survey tool we used for the
plugin priorities to come up with a ordered set of priorities for the
features we want to include. Then, we can chop that list up (maybe
every fourth feature), and call them 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, etc. At this
point, 2.1 would be a baseline that is as near as possible to perfect
compatibility with 2.0.x, and 2.1.1 might fix regressions in that code
until we have the agreed-upon features for 2.2 done.
We could stay two or three major releases ahead of ourselves using
this list, and triage new feature requests as they come up, to see if
we need to reshuffle the release plan. The point is, without putting
calendar dates on things, we'd be putting together a what - and,
relatively speaking, when - plan for our releases that we could publish.
In case you're concerned about who's going to drive the items on this
list, my own feeling is that it needs to capture the sense of the
development community. To that end, the survey should be conducted
among developers, without direct input from users. However, each
developer should be acting in the interests of the user community at
least part of the time, so we need to focus on balancing the cool with
the useful to make sure our releases are relevant to users.
Of course, it also means that all of us will sometimes have to be
patient for the feature near and dear to our hearts to come up in the
release plan, and help get the other things out of the way first.
However, I think this could help us unify a lot of the different
directions we all seem to be heading WRT Maven's core, and maybe keep
things moving forward at a steady pace.
To get things started, we have a long list of proposals out here:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/All+Proposals
Also, from users, we have these:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/User+Proposals
But I'm sure this is at most 10% of what people have in mind for
Maven. Maybe we can have a short discussion of things we need to be
doing in the relatively near term for the health of Maven, then cap
that discussion and turn it into a survey to help us consolidate
priorities. Then, we can chop them up into a release plan and get
started.
Does this make sense? Does anyone feel that this is wildly off target?
-john
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
