alpha on other teams I have been on has also included filling out a feature. Alpha meant changes to module already implemented for functionality of the design that was missing. the numbering was the level of change to the code. the further the .x.x.x the less of a change to the code.
========================= BJ Freeman http://bjfreeman.elance.com Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro> Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 4/13/2010 3:21 AM: > On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> >>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jacopo, >>>> >>>> What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what >>>> we have now where we create a release branch? >>> It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group >>> of contributors because the we can guarantee that it is full compliant with >>> ASF license requirements. >> Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me. I'm not entirely >> clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a, 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the >> stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?) >> > > Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is > "stable" from what is not; in your example, of course 10.04a is not stable; > however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1. > I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we > could follow the following strategy: adding the prefix "alpha-" to all the > releases we feel like should not be considered "stable". > For example: > alpha-10.04.a > alpha-10.04.b > Then when we feel we can consider the release stable: > 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04) > 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04) > or even: > stable-10.04 > stable-10.04.1 > > Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha > release and then continue increasing the suffix: > alpha-10.04.1 > alpha-10.04.2 > stable-10.04.3 > stable-10.04.4 > > but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the "stable" release will > start with 10.04.3) > > Jacopo > > >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 13/04/2010, at 8:19 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry if I am hijacking this thread, but the more I think of it the more >>>>> I believe we should officially create an "alpha" release 10.04, instead >>>>> of simply creating a release candidate for 10.04. >>>>> In this way we will have two official current releases: >>>>> 09.04 Stable Release >>>>> 10.04 Alpha Release >>>>> >>>>> Intended audiences: >>>>> 09.04: final users with no interest (or resources) in helping the >>>>> community to build and maintain stable releases >>>>> 10.04: users (they could be service providers, end user companies with >>>>> internal resources or longer term goals etc...) that are willing to help >>>>> the community to build and maintain a stable release >>>>> >>>>> If there will be interest around the 10.04 alpha release, we will get bug >>>>> fixes that will be part of a future 10.04.1 "stable" (bug fix) release >>>>> (or a "beta" release), or even 10.04.2,3,4,5 etc... (each of them more >>>>> stable than the predecessor). >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:11 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Just to be clear though, I am NOT in favor of back-porting large chunks >>>>>> of functionality to the release branch under the guise of bug fixes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/04/2010, at 12:06 PM, Anil Patel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Looks like, none who participated in this thread have objections for >>>>>>> merging of securitycontext20091231 branch with trunk. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>> Anil Patel >>>>>>> HotWax Media Inc >>>>>>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well I don't see any problem with dropping it in right now then. The >>>>>>>> real question will be what do people want to be able to backport once >>>>>>>> the release branch is created. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/04/2010, at 5:35 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The security redesign implementation itself is mostly finished. There >>>>>>>>> are a few TODOs and they can be found in the BranchReadMe.txt file. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I recently synchronized the branch with the trunk and there is a >>>>>>>>> remote chance something in the design might have broken in the >>>>>>>>> process. I need to run some tests and review the code to see if that >>>>>>>>> happened. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Example component has been switched over to the new design. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a user login called "artifact-user" that demonstrates the >>>>>>>>> new design. That user login is restricted to using the Example >>>>>>>>> component. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If the branch was merged back to the trunk and the new security >>>>>>>>> design was enabled, the Example component would use the new design >>>>>>>>> and the remaining components would still use the current security >>>>>>>>> design. The two can co-exist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I imagine the process after that would be similar to when we >>>>>>>>> introduced the permission checking services - contributors can >>>>>>>>> contribute code that converts parts of the project over to the new >>>>>>>>> security design. Conversion involves removing hard-coded permission >>>>>>>>> checks and creating seed data to grant permission to component >>>>>>>>> artifacts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I mentioned before, switching a component over to the new design >>>>>>>>> can create some unexpected problems. That's because our existing code >>>>>>>>> has security holes in it, and the new design plugs those holes - >>>>>>>>> making parts of the component unreachable. In other words, parts of >>>>>>>>> code that happily allow you to do things you don't have permission to >>>>>>>>> do will start to throw exceptions in the new design. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Question: >>>>>>>>>> What exactly is the current status of the execution branch? What is >>>>>>>>>> it that needs to be done for it to be enabled in the trunk? >>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry if you feel you've already answered that question but I'm >>>>>>>>>> afraid it still isn't entirely clear to me. >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>>> On 7/04/2010, at 5:14 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> If we wait, then we're waiting for evaluation and testing of the >>>>>>>>>>> branch. I've done all I can do - the code is written, I suggested >>>>>>>>>>> we do the merge before the release branch, and I gave my reasons >>>>>>>>>>> for suggesting it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> At this point in time I have stepped out of the discussion (in a >>>>>>>>>>> positive way) to give others a chance to look at the design and the >>>>>>>>>>> code and decide for themselves if it should be included. In other >>>>>>>>>>> words, I don't want to be in a position where I have to convince >>>>>>>>>>> the community what it should do. If the design and the >>>>>>>>>>> implementation are good, then there will be no need to convince >>>>>>>>>>> anyone, right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'll answer questions about the executioncontext branch, and I'll >>>>>>>>>>> continue to work on it here and there when I have the time. If the >>>>>>>>>>> release branch is created without it, then that will be fine with >>>>>>>>>>> me. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> :-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
