I think m1 is more concrete than a beta, while signalling that it's
not feature complete
Sent from my iPod
On 29 Aug 2008, at 17:32, "Raphaël Piéroni"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+0.99 for 1
+0.01 for 2
I really like 2.0.10 to be 2.1.0-M1 but i dislike the name i would
prefer 2.1.0-beta-1
I don't have found any document stating which pre x.y.z (with x, y, z
integers) standard maven follows.
Raphaël
2008/8/29, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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
--
John Casey
Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
