Well lets get a release then so we have something to try. It's been a
waiting game it seems so far. If there's a release we can integrate soon
enough into the cycle, then we have a chance of detecting and fixing any
issues. It always seems to come up far too late in the cycle to do
anything about it. So I say if we want to get it included, then let's
have a release right away
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Lundberg [mailto:denn...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:50 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
I'm undecided about what version number to use, and leave that decision
to others.
One issue that I strongly feel needs to go into 2.1.0 final is MNG-3602,
the inclusion of Doxia 1.1 into the core. According to the release plan
for Doxia [1], Lukas had agreed to release Doxia 1.1. If he's not
available to do it I can do it.
[1] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Doxia+Release+Plan
John Casey wrote:
I fully agree with Brian about the version naming for the next
release.
Given its track record over the last 6 months, using -M1 for the last
release crippled it unfairly in the public view; it's at least as
stable
as 2.0.9, even with the problems we had concerning wagon 1.0-beta-4.
IMO, there is absolutely no reason to do another milestone release. We
should be moving toward 2.1.0 final, resolving the worst regressions
and
the most watched/voted-for issues before doing so. Currently, we have
what looks like 4 major issues still unresolved in the 2.1.0 bucket,
judging from the votes. Three of these are in progress, I think. I
know
I'm working on MNG-3057, for instance, and I thought Oleg was working
on
MNG-553 still...Brett, are you still working on MNG-3379, and did you
plan to finish that before we release 2.1.0? The fourth top issue
seems
on the face of it to be based on a common misunderstanding about how
profiles are triggered and applied...probably more of a
documentation/education task than anything else.
Beyond that, I'm alright releasing 2.1.0 final provided we can be sure
that the wagon version we're using is stable. I seem to remember an
issue coming up shortly after the release of 2.1.0-M1 related to one
of
the new Wagon implementations - WebDAV, maybe? I'm having some trouble
remembering/finding that issue in my gmail, but we need to make sure
that doesn't get left out of this release. If it means rolling back to
an older wagon version, then let's do that.
I'm not in favor of releasing another milestone of 2.1.0 at this
point.
Sure, we should have done more work to execute that release plan last
fall. I for one got very sidetracked putting together a build farm
that
we can use to help verify future releases of Maven proactively. In any
case, I think the value of milestone releases is greatly diminished at
this point, and we need to get serious about 2.1.0 final. We can push
off the non-critical JIRAs currently slated for 2.1.0 into the 2.1.1
bucket, and get on with it once we have these four dealt with.
-john
Brett Porter wrote:
So, there seems to be some agreement.
However, I've come back from underground and now there are *two*
snapshots on trunk. I'm already spending valentine's day alone, so I
didn't really need another reason to curl up in the corner and cry :)
I would really like to pull an M2 release in the next week with the
stuff that is already there. John, what do you think?
Thanks,
Brett
On 10/02/2009, at 9:43 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
Yep good idea.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brett Porter [mailto:br...@porterclan.net] On Behalf Of Brett
Porter
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:44 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
I'm +1 for including it and providing an opt-out switch to turn it
off. If we can make that switch stick permanently via the
settings.xml, so much the better.
+1 (even better, configure number of parallel threads, just set it
to
1 to turn it off).
On 09/02/2009, at 11:18 PM, John Casey wrote:
I'll rearrange the JIRA versions today, then...it looks like we're
all in agreement about moving directly toward 2.1.0 generally.
Let's slow down a bit...
We are totally in agreement to moving towards 2.1.0 generally, and
the
list in JIRA now reflects that.
However, I don't see why we'd cancel a milestone release when
there's
already been good progress. I was all ready to roll that once the
remaining snapshot was released (I've been working on it since
December since you said you didn't have time), but now JIRA has been
transformed and any release is 23 issues (I'm guessing probably 2
weeks minimum) away. Then the RC cycle will be more brutal.
Why couldn't we stick to the plan as it was yesterday? Same issues,
more intermediate releases.
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
br...@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
--
Brett Porter
br...@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
