On Apr 8, 2010, at 12:57 AM, Scott Gray wrote:

> Considering we have yet to do an official release after 3.5 years and the 
> lack of user interest in our release branches (partly because we recommend 
> the trunk to everybody), I think it would be a waste of time and effort to 
> create more than one release branch per year. 

This would be part of a change in our release strategy to be more in line with 
what ASF likes, but we don't have to discuss this now; whenever I (or anyone 
else of course) will think that it is a good time for a release then we will 
discuss the specific situation and the vote will tell what is the general 
consensus about it; I don't think that it is important to discuss this in 
general now.

Jacopo

> 
> If we want the security branch in there then lets wait, there is no good 
> reason for us to release this month, it's just an arbitrary date.
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> 
> 
> On 7/04/2010, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> 
>> I would suggest to:
>> 1) release 10.04 before the merge is done
>> 2) merge the code to the trunk, switch to it, fix any possible issue
>> 3) do another release (10.06?)
>> 
>> I know this is not inline with what we currently think a release should be, 
>> but this is very inline with what the ASF practices and so I will continue 
>> to insist with the release-often practice. :-)
>> 
>> Jacopo
>> 
>> On Apr 4, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> 
>>> I would like to start bringing parts of the executioncontext20091231 branch 
>>> into the trunk before we create the next release branch. The implementation 
>>> of the new security design is not finished, but it will be disabled - so 
>>> everything will still work the same.
>>> 
>>> My goal is to allow users of the 10.x release to plan for the forthcoming 
>>> changes, and maybe have the conversion to the new design completed by the 
>>> release that follows 10.x.
>>> 
>>> I will wait a few days, and if there are no objections I will begin merging 
>>> the design into the trunk.
>>> 
>>> -Adrian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to