I do agree with Simon that there is no need to run the TCK (I can confirm that it is a major hassle) for those milestones or integration builds, but we should warn users accordingly. When we see that a milestone has no major bugs and many new bugs has been fixed or issues implemented, we could decide to prepare a release, run the TCK etc...
Regards, Bruno 2005/12/10, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I think the problem with more frequent real releases is the difficulty > of running Sun's TCK. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of this, but > it sounds like a major hassle, and I expect that each official "release" > would need to be re-certified unless the changes were limited just to > very simple bugfixes. > > Making "milestone" releases should be much easier; there's no need to > run the TCK on these (though they should be JSF-compliant barring any > accidents). > > > Abrams, Howard A wrote: > > How about just releasing smaller bug-fix releases, more often? I tried > > to start the conversation about then 1.1.2 would be released and the > > 'roadmap', but the conversation has stalled. > > > > Should we call a vote to begin the release process for 1.1.2? > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Simon Kitching [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 8:07 PM > >> To: MyFaces Development > >> Subject: Milestone builds? > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> What do people think about releasing a binary milestone build? > >> > >> Currently the SVN head is pretty stable. There are *many* great fixes > >> and enhancements since the 1.1.1 release, but people may be (rightly) > >> wary of trying to use SVN head as there's no guarantee it's workable > > at > >> any particular time. > >> > >> Releasing a "milestone" build every couple of months, where we run the > >> tests, the examples, wait a few days for any problem reports, then > >> publish it could be very useful without being a large burden to > > create. > >> Opinions? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Simon > > > > > > > >
