the alternative that I see is if we set a cut-off date for features to
be complete. if all features for 2.1.0 must be completed in 4 weeks
and we leave 4 weeks to stabilize then I don't see the need to give a
definitive list of features for 2.1.0 *now*.
[however as I am not currently an apache committer, this is just my
opinion]
I agree that the 2.1 rat hole should be avoided above all
Sent from my iPod
On 30 Aug 2008, at 03:28, "Brian E. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Until I see a definitive list of the Milestones for 2.1, I vote for
#2.
I am mostly afraid of going down the rat hole that was the old 2.1
with
forever changing scope. I don't see any problem with calling this 2.1
and putting in the other features into 2.2, what's the problem?
-----Original Message-----
From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:02 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: [vote] Version for pending release
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
