I don't really get a vote, but as a user, implementer, and
recommender, I heartily agree with this. parallel resolution in 2.2,
and tie off a 2.1 final as quickly as possible.
Cheers,
Christian.
On 6-Feb-09, at 12:12 , John Casey wrote:
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
John Casey wrote:
At that point, we can make plans for a relatively fast release of
2.1.1 for the higher-risk issues that are sitting in the 2.1.0-M*
buckets now...possibly parallel artifact downloads if we can ever
get test coverage for that.
IMHO the introduction of the parallel artifact download is a
significant change that is beyond bugfixing maintenance but a new
feature and as such warrants a minor version increment, i.e. 2.2.
As a user, I dislike mere micro version increments when there is
presumably "higher-risk".
Couldn't agree more. In the case of parallel artifact resolution,
I'm unwilling to move on it at all until we can get a really solid
test suite written for it, and TBH I'd much prefer involving Don in
that effort, since he wrote the code and will have thought about the
problem (including, perhaps, some failed initial attempts) much more
than the rest of us. IMO, this would inform his testing, and give us
a better chance of releasing without bugs.
I'm +1 for moving parallel resolution to 2.2, definitely.
-john
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Christian Edward Gruber
christianedwardgru...@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
