The result was:
#1: 6 binding: Mark H., Jason, Brett, Wendy, Dan F., Dan K.
2 non-binding: Ralph, Raphael
#2: 2 binding: Brian, Dennis
2 non-binding: Mauro, Stephen
If you're following the other thread ("Maven 2.1.0 GA Plan") you'll see
that I've started to formalize the suggestions I made for features to be
included in 2.1.0 in Confluence. This is by no means set in stone; in
fact, for two of the features, we're still waiting on design
documentation before I'm comfortable committing to them.
I'd like to know if anyone would like to put a different issue on the
plan, and/or maybe talk about bumping one or more of these features to
2.2...in short, I was hoping to solicit some discussion about what we're
going to be building for 2.1.0.
Thanks,
-john
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
--
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]