marc fleury wrote:
>
> You make a good case, and you certainly argue it well.
>
> There was no "bugfix production branch" because there was no will to do it.
> There will be now.
>
> I will do it post 2.1. I realize that mixing "bug fix" and "new development"
> is a problem but not a mistake. I will explain: I believe that having
> people play with the connectors early on will make a 2.2 or 2.4 stable
> release. "closed doors dev is odd". I hope offering a "stable branch" in
> CVS won't take from the development exposure.
Thank you. The timing WRT post 2.1 is perfect. I agree completely with
your points about 'problem' vs. 'mistake' and would not want to see
'closed door' development on jBoss - the openness of development by the
jBoss community is the source of its strength.
For my part, I plan on keeping the 'dev' branch on my home machine,
which is where I do the majority of my development these days. My goal
is to contribute more patches than complaints 8^})
>
> So I will in fact release the 2.2 version based on 2.1 development.
> We will switch to 2.3 in development and maintain a 2.2.X branch that is bug
> fixes essentially and includes no new feature.
>
> new features go in 2.3.x
>
> I am working on the website these days (btw new machine should be at new
> site by monday) because that is how we really communicate these days, there
> is just too much traffic on jboss-user to effectively communicate.
>
> I will put a page on "versions" there.
>
> marc
>
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of danch
> |Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 4:37 PM
> |To: jBoss Developer
> |Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] org.jboss.resource.ConfigFactoryConfig is
> |missing?
> |
> |
> |This prompts me to ask a general question.
> |
> |Are there any plans post 2.1 to separate a development branch of jBoss
> |from the stable branch?
> |
> |The reason I bring this up is that there have been various points when
> |bugs found in version 2.0 have been fixed in the CVS repository, but
> |that repository has been unsuitable for production (due to the addition
> |of new features and the refactoring of existing designs). While it's
> |always possible to fetch the original 2.0 code and patch it up to fix
> |the bug, it would be much easier to users of jBoss if the could simply
> |get version 2.0.1
> |
> |I think that jBoss 2 was a production-ready release, and was rather
> |surprised that full scale development continued after its release
> |without any mechanism like this to allow bugfix releases in the interum.
> |
> |This lack of a 'stable branch' (if you will) also makes it more
> |difficult for me to advocate the use of jBoss for a production
> |environment - telling my boss (who has a technical background) "jBoss is
> |a great development environment and the releases are really solid." will
> |lead to the question "How are they about bugfixes." OK, I can answer
> |"Well, I can patch up the production server!" won't quite cut it. Having
> |that discussion with a client could be a career limiting move.
> |
> |Please understand that I mean no criticism of the good work that all of
> |the JBoss developers are doing, and I hope you understand my regrets
> |that I haven't had the time to contribute materially myself. I do think
> |that by adopting a bit of formality in terms of development vs. stable
> |releases, we (the jBoss community) can make the jBoss suite of tools far
> |more compelling to a far wider audience.
> |
> |peace, love, and Good Code,
> |danch
> |
> |
> |Aaron Mulder wrote:
> |>
> |> Yes, sure. If you're really considering making 2.1, is there any
> |> chance we could cut another beta first? I'd like to float the new
> |> Connectors and Minerva for a week or more to get the kinks out. In any
> |> case, if you could give us until Monday before you build anything, that
> |> would be appreciated.
> |>
> |> Aaron
> |>
> |> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, marc fleury wrote:
> |> > Please try to put CVS back in shape soon, I will be doing 2.1
> |packaging soon
> |
