Do we finally have plan for What all stuff we want to complete before release branch 10.04 is created?
From what I understand community will like to get following done 1) Merge security redesign work into trunk. 2) Layered lookup work finished, This looks be to complete, is that true? Do we want to wait till April 30th or create branch sooner? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" On Apr 13, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@gmail.com> >> On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>> On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>> 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) >>>>>> I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to >>>>>> describing each release, the download page and perhaps a >>>>>> README file can help as well. >>>>>> How about: >>>>>> 10.04-alpha-1 >>>>>> 10.04-alpha-2 >>>>>> 10.04 >>>>>> 10.04.1 >>>>>> 10.04.2 >>>>>> ? >>>>> Or what other ASF projects do: >>>>> >>>>> 10.04-RC1 >>>>> 10.04-RC2 >>>>> 10.04 >>>>> 10.04.1 >>>>> 10.04.2 >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>> I would prefer to avoid the RC (Release Candidate) suffix because it could >>>> be confusing since it is actually a real release, >>>> even if not intended to be used in production. >>> >>> I guess everyone has their preference. Not using the RC suffix seems more >>> confusing to me. ;-) >>> >> >> HTTPD and Tomcat use a lot "alpha" and "beta" releases >> >> http://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/ >> http://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6/ >> >> I think that RC is used more in branches and tags (for release candidates >> actually). >> >> Jacopo > > Then looks like beta alpha are better terms (I quickly plussed because I > thought it was the Apache way) > > Though I still wonder if we will not been even more considered as a technical > framework, than as a ready to use ERP, with this numbering. In my mind, the > less the best, but yes maybe we will benefit better feedback from some major > contributors. At least it's worth to try. > > Jacques > >
