Hi all, in my opinion a simpler way to proceed it to continue to commit things for 2.0.4 under the 2.0.x maintenance branch, and then merge (by hand) fixes even in trunk (for 2.1.0). And then tag soon the 2.0.4 release (there are some critical things too for it).
Sorry but I don't have time anymore for delete and re-tag 2.0.3, because making a release is REALLY a time-consuming operation (there are many steps/checks to do for quality, etc), usually 1 FULL day of work is needed. But Roger, if you want to try I can help you, but I suggest to do it for 2.0.4 . Anyway, unless we get at least another vote from a PMC Member we won't be able to publish a release (after a succesful vote), this is really our priority. So Roger, as you prefer ... Of course if there aren't critical issues in 2.0.x still to fix we could even think to move all them in 2.1.0, and move other in 2.1.x (but in trunk), so deprecate the 2.0.x maintenance branch. Note that for 2.1 there are many (a lot) existing issues and probably many of them could be moved to wish, deleted (maybe are no more valid), etc . For sure we should go to the "release often" way, but we need more developers ... so anyone interested tell us :-) . Bye, Sandro 2013/5/4 Roger L. Whitcomb <roger.whitc...@actian.com> > I've identified the first post-2.0.3-release-attempt bug that I'd like > to fix (PIVOT-905 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIVOT-905> ). > So, the questions for consensus opinion are these: > > 1. Should we go ahead and update "branches/2.0.x" for build 2.0.4, > and fix this bug for this next version? > > 2. Or just leave "branches/2.0.x" as 2.0.3, and potentially retag > 2.0.3 with some more changes (including this one)? > > 3. Or should I just fix in "trunk" and leave 2.0.3 as-is until we > figure out what the next version is going to be? > > > > We (my company) are probably going to switch to 2.1.0 (that is, "trunk") > fairly soon (say within a month) because of the Remote File Browser > functionality (using Common VFS) that I'm working on there. But, given > that the 2.0.3 vote didn't pass, I think I'm open to retagging and > redoing that version with a few more fixes.... But, I could live with > any of the above solutions depending on what others think. > > > > So, any thoughts? Questions? > > > > Thanks, > > ~Roger Whitcomb > >
