+1 for #1
John Casey wrote:
Okay,
Let's put it to a vote. We have two options:
1. Release the current release candidate as milestone 1 of the 2.1.0
codeline. The version for this release would be 2.1.0-M1.
The advantage of this approach is that it keeps is (relatively)
focused on only three simultaneous codebases, not four. It provides a
stable foundation for building out a small set of new features for a
final GA release of 2.1.0. This release will have no new features, and
its only goal is backward compatibility with the maximum stability
possible. To me, this isn't enough to distinguish it from 2.0.x.
However, the implementation details are such that it deserves to be
separate.
The disadvantage is that a -M1 release may not attract as many users,
and the performance/stability gains may not be compelling enough to
overcome the psychological barrier of moving from 2.0.9 to 2.1.0-M1.
2. Release the current release candidate as 2.1.0 GA.
The advantage here is that the work we've put into stabilizing this RC
is probably more worth of a GA release, and by calling it 2.1.0 we can
tell our users how solid we think it is. Additionally, calling this
2.1.0 means that the only thing we could do for 2.1.1, 2.1.2, etc.
would be to fix any regressions that cropped up without adding risk
from new features.
The major disadvantage is that it will mean that some of us are adding
new features to 2.2.0 (parent-versioning, reactor changes, etc.) while
others are trying to push out regression fixes on 2.0.x and 2.1.x,
while still others are introducing large-scale changes on the 3.0.x
branch. I'm personally not sure we can drive four parallel codelines
to release in a timely manner.
So, let's vote. Just indicate whether you support #1 or #2.
My vote is for #1.
Thanks,
-john
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
