So there will be 2.0.x
2.1.x and 3.0 ? 2009/1/30 Brian E. Fox <[email protected]>: > There's a new 2.1 cut from the 2.0.x branch that provides a space to put > features. We did this back in Aug/Sept but there's been little forward > progress, so a release should get it started. When we planned it out, > there was a lot of interest in new features but I don't think much has > been done in the last 5 months, so I don't see the point in waiting for > future features, lets get 2.1 out so people will start to use it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 8:39 AM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: releasing 2.0.10? > > I was thinking : > > 2.0.x is the current Maven 2 > > 2.1 deprecated and will became 3.0 > > But what is 2.2 ? or 2.1 ? > > I'm puzzled > > > 2009/1/30 Brian E. Fox <[email protected]>: >> My original intent was to shift the focus to 2.1 and bring that > quickly >> to GA. The development on it has stalled so it's irrelevant if it's >> feature complete or not, it's stable and usable as it is. Future >> features can go into 2.1.x or 2.2. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Paul Benedict >> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:58 PM >> To: Maven Developers List >> Subject: Re: releasing 2.0.10? >> >> I don't think it's wise to EOL a product without a GA replacement. >> It's true that because 2.1 is in milestone releases it is not usable >> by many people in an "approved" managerial environment, but, to the >> same token, it's not feature complete either. >> >> Personally speaking, I definitely am eagerly awaiting the issues >> scheduled in 2.0.11. >> >> Please continue releasing 2.0.x until 2.1/3.0 has a GA. >> >> Paul >> >>> On 28/01/2009, at 9:03 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote: >>> >>>> Normally I would agree on the late change, but it's entirely > optional >>>> usage so it wouldn't affect existing builds and I'd like to start >>>> thinking about 2.0.10 being the EOL for 2.0.x. >>> >>> Given there's already been a good number of fixes for 2.0.11 that >> haven't >>> been rolled up to 2.0.10-RC, maybe pushing 2.0.10 out as is and > having >> .11 >>> as the EOL is a better way to go - wdyt? >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
