Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
I'm -0 on the 2.0.11 release. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Brett Porterbr...@apache.org wrote: On 01/07/2009, at 6:01 AM, Brian Fox wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Brett Porterbr...@apache.org wrote: On 01/07/2009, at 1:47 AM, nicolas de loof wrote: I'm also fine with this, just would like to avoid some EOL tag on 2.0 that may be considered as lack of support by some corporate users using (old) maven releases Sure, we can use a different name. All I meant EOL to mean here was that we don't plan to make any more releases (unless something is found to be really, horribly, wrong). EOD (end of development) is probably more appropriate. Exactly, and IMO, we're at that point today with 2.0.10 Ok, but are you leaning towards a -0 or a -1 on a 2.0.11 release? I'm happy to burn the small amount of my time on it and clean up the release process along the way (given the issues we had with 2.2.0). I'm not looking to add any more changes, just release the 37 already merged in there so we have a proper end point. It should be a short cycle since it's stuff already in 2.1.0+, but there were a couple of critical ones (eg, POM plugin ordering regression) that are worth having IMO. Cheers, Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. The point is, in 6 months nobody knows axaclty anymore what is in 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT. That will actually stop any bugfix release ever. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it. - Paul On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jörg Schaiblejoerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote: Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. The point is, in 6 months nobody knows axaclty anymore what is in 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT. That will actually stop any bugfix release ever. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
+1 Paul Benedict wrote: My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it. - Paul On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jörg Schaiblejoerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote: Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. The point is, in 6 months nobody knows axaclty anymore what is in 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT. That will actually stop any bugfix release ever. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Paul Benedict schrieb: My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it. - Paul +1 2.0.x is the last JDK 1.4 release. Users of the GPG plugin simply cannot use 2.1.x. -- Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Ok, for starters I've moved all the open issues from 2.0.11 to 2.2.1 and am now going through them to cull them down where possible. I've also confirmed that the ITs pass for 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT as it is. Once I get the 2.1.x bits cleaned up (per original mail that everyone seems in favour of), I'll spin an RC and see what everyone thinks. - Brett On 02/07/2009, at 1:46 AM, John Casey wrote: +1 Paul Benedict wrote: My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it. - Paul On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jörg Schaiblejoerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote: Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. The point is, in 6 months nobody knows axaclty anymore what is in 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT. That will actually stop any bugfix release ever. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
On 1-Jul-09, at 9:47 AM, Brett Porter wrote: Ok, for starters I've moved all the open issues from 2.0.11 to 2.2.1 and am now going through them to cull them down where possible. You need to leave the bugs raised against 2.0.x because there is no way around the fact that 2.0.x is going to be the dominant version used for quite some time. We can't just stop bug fixing the 2.0.x line. If you moved them all how are you going to know what applies? I've also confirmed that the ITs pass for 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT as it is. Once I get the 2.1.x bits cleaned up (per original mail that everyone seems in favour of), I'll spin an RC and see what everyone thinks. - Brett On 02/07/2009, at 1:46 AM, John Casey wrote: +1 Paul Benedict wrote: My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it. - Paul On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jörg Schaiblejoerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote: Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. The point is, in 6 months nobody knows axaclty anymore what is in 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT. That will actually stop any bugfix release ever. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E -- First, the taking in of scattered particulars under one Idea, so that everyone understands what is being talked about ... Second, the separation of the Idea into parts, by dividing it at the joints, as nature directs, not breaking any limb in half as a bad carver might. -- Plato, Phaedrus (Notes on the Synthesis of Form by C. Alexander) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
On 02/07/2009, at 3:38 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: On 1-Jul-09, at 9:47 AM, Brett Porter wrote: Ok, for starters I've moved all the open issues from 2.0.11 to 2.2.1 and am now going through them to cull them down where possible. You need to leave the bugs raised against 2.0.x because there is no way around the fact that 2.0.x is going to be the dominant version used for quite some time. We can't just stop bug fixing the 2.0.x line. If you moved them all how are you going to know what applies? There weren't any changes to the affects version. - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
It's logical to believe that 2.1 and 2.2 contain almost all the unresolved bugs of 2.0.x. Since 2.0.x is no longer being supported, there's no good reason to keep them attached to that version. You only want to backport the issues that will get fixing -- not potential fixes UNLESS the issue is exclusively a 2.0.x issue. -- Paul On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Jason van Zyljvan...@sonatype.com wrote: You need to leave the bugs raised against 2.0.x because there is no way around the fact that 2.0.x is going to be the dominant version used for quite some time. We can't just stop bug fixing the 2.0.x line. If you moved them all how are you going to know what applies? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Christian Schulte wrote: Paul Benedict schrieb: My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it. - Paul +1 2.0.x is the last JDK 1.4 release. Users of the GPG plugin simply cannot use 2.1.x. No. 2.1.x is also JDK 1.4. That was the whole point for starting 2.2.x. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
On 1-Jul-09, at 10:52 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: It's logical to believe that 2.1 and 2.2 contain almost all the unresolved bugs of 2.0.x. Since 2.0.x is no longer being supported, there's no good reason to keep them attached to that version. You only want to backport the issues that will get fixing -- not potential fixes UNLESS the issue is exclusively a 2.0.x issue. Unfortunately this may not be the case because the code bases are now pretty different. My only concern is that the 2.0.x line becomes the ugly stepchild meanwhile this is where the vast majority of our users live. -- Paul On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Jason van Zyljvan...@sonatype.com wrote: You need to leave the bugs raised against 2.0.x because there is no way around the fact that 2.0.x is going to be the dominant version used for quite some time. We can't just stop bug fixing the 2.0.x line. If you moved them all how are you going to know what applies? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
FYI, you can still build 1.4 projects safely in Maven 2.2.0: http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-building-jdk14-on-jdk15.html -john Christian Schulte wrote: Paul Benedict schrieb: My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it. - Paul +1 2.0.x is the last JDK 1.4 release. Users of the GPG plugin simply cannot use 2.1.x. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
On 02/07/2009, at 4:06 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: On 1-Jul-09, at 10:52 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: It's logical to believe that 2.1 and 2.2 contain almost all the unresolved bugs of 2.0.x. Since 2.0.x is no longer being supported, there's no good reason to keep them attached to that version. You only want to backport the issues that will get fixing -- not potential fixes UNLESS the issue is exclusively a 2.0.x issue. Unfortunately this may not be the case because the code bases are now pretty different. My only concern is that the 2.0.x line becomes the ugly stepchild meanwhile this is where the vast majority of our users live. Ok, even so - I think there was some agreement that we wouldn't explicitly plan for a 2.0.12+ release, which was the motivation for the change I made. If, in the process of fixing an issue, the committer decides it really should be backported to 2.0.x that's still a possibility (or if someone else comes along and requests it). But I get the feeling that those sticking to 2.0.x are happy - in that they've got things working the way they want and probably won't jump up to further 2.0.x releases, let along 2.2.x. If we put out a 2.0.11 release and say this is the last, barring critical issues - start looking at 2.2, we'll fairly soon hear about it if that's not what users want. At the same time, if we do start pushing fixes into 2.2.x, that gives more people incentive to try it, and help us identify if there are further barriers to moving across, in addition to continuing to build out more integration test cases that benefit us across the board. - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Brett Porter wrote: But I get the feeling that those sticking to 2.0.x are happy - in that they've got things working the way they want and probably won't jump up to further 2.0.x releases, let along 2.2.x. If we put out a 2.0.11 release and say this is the last, barring critical issues - start looking at 2.2, we'll fairly soon hear about it if that's not what users want. At the same time, if we do start pushing fixes into 2.2.x, that gives more people incentive to try it, and help us identify if there are further barriers to moving across, in addition to continuing to build out more integration test cases that benefit us across the board. - Brett Personally, I think this makes a lot of sense. I think we shouldn't go out of our way to freak out our user base, but at the same time we shouldn't spend too much time pushing the envelope with 2.0.x now that we've decided to move on. If we announce that we're doing critical fixes only on 2.0.x - and not spending time cleaning up - then people who have a problem with this should become visible. It's a good way to engage with our community to figure out why people won't make the jump, IMO. If it's just about an arbitrary version number, I'm not sure how to reassure those people without making a largely symbolic 2.2.1 release. -john - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Jason, I apologize for misspeaking. I meant what Brian said: the affected version should stay the same. It's okay to remove the Fix for version which was altered to 2.2.1 On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Brett Porterbr...@apache.org wrote: On 02/07/2009, at 4:06 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: On 1-Jul-09, at 10:52 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: It's logical to believe that 2.1 and 2.2 contain almost all the unresolved bugs of 2.0.x. Since 2.0.x is no longer being supported, there's no good reason to keep them attached to that version. You only want to backport the issues that will get fixing -- not potential fixes UNLESS the issue is exclusively a 2.0.x issue. Unfortunately this may not be the case because the code bases are now pretty different. My only concern is that the 2.0.x line becomes the ugly stepchild meanwhile this is where the vast majority of our users live. Ok, even so - I think there was some agreement that we wouldn't explicitly plan for a 2.0.12+ release, which was the motivation for the change I made. If, in the process of fixing an issue, the committer decides it really should be backported to 2.0.x that's still a possibility (or if someone else comes along and requests it). But I get the feeling that those sticking to 2.0.x are happy - in that they've got things working the way they want and probably won't jump up to further 2.0.x releases, let along 2.2.x. If we put out a 2.0.11 release and say this is the last, barring critical issues - start looking at 2.2, we'll fairly soon hear about it if that's not what users want. At the same time, if we do start pushing fixes into 2.2.x, that gives more people incentive to try it, and help us identify if there are further barriers to moving across, in addition to continuing to build out more integration test cases that benefit us across the board. - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
As a user... +1 On Jul 1, 2009, at 3:41 PM, John Casey wrote: Brett Porter wrote: But I get the feeling that those sticking to 2.0.x are happy - in that they've got things working the way they want and probably won't jump up to further 2.0.x releases, let along 2.2.x. If we put out a 2.0.11 release and say this is the last, barring critical issues - start looking at 2.2, we'll fairly soon hear about it if that's not what users want. At the same time, if we do start pushing fixes into 2.2.x, that gives more people incentive to try it, and help us identify if there are further barriers to moving across, in addition to continuing to build out more integration test cases that benefit us across the board. - Brett Personally, I think this makes a lot of sense. I think we shouldn't go out of our way to freak out our user base, but at the same time we shouldn't spend too much time pushing the envelope with 2.0.x now that we've decided to move on. If we announce that we're doing critical fixes only on 2.0.x - and not spending time cleaning up - then people who have a problem with this should become visible. It's a good way to engage with our community to figure out why people won't make the jump, IMO. If it's just about an arbitrary version number, I'm not sure how to reassure those people without making a largely symbolic 2.2.1 release. -john - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Christian Edward Gruber christianedwardgru...@gmail.com http://www.geekinasuit.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x line because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and users will probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions happened a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line will still be in widespread use for the next year. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porterbr...@apache.org wrote: Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question about whether to merge to it or not. - Brett On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: Hmm... - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E -- Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead. -- Benjamin Franklin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release. Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1 from 2.0? JIRA notes are for the geeks but a general summary would be worthwhile. I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme. Paul On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van Zyljvan...@sonatype.com wrote: On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x line because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and users will probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions happened a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line will still be in widespread use for the next year. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porterbr...@apache.org wrote: Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question about whether to merge to it or not. - Brett On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: Hmm... - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E -- Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead. -- Benjamin Franklin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Brett Porter wrote: - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch - +1 - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all bugfix work towards 2.2.x +1 - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already committed there. +1 - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch non binding -1 : The 2.0 user base is still large, most of them just don't yet use the latest 2.0.10. We could just promote 2.2.x as the latest stable release BUT still consider a critical bug-fix branch for 2.0.x 2009/6/30 Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release. Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1 from 2.0? JIRA notes are for the geeks but a general summary would be worthwhile. I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme. Paul On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van Zyljvan...@sonatype.com wrote: On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x line because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and users will probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions happened a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line will still be in widespread use for the next year. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porterbr...@apache.org wrote: Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question about whether to merge to it or not. - Brett On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: Hmm... - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E -- Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead. -- Benjamin Franklin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
+1 to Nicholas' assessment. Too many firms I've worked with won't be changing to 2.1/2.2 until it's been in production release for several months, and probably won't trust it. They'll need critical bug support on 2.0. We just need a window for migration, that's all. cheers, Christian. On Jun 30, 2009, at 9:52 AM, nicolas de loof wrote: Brett Porter wrote: - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch - +1 - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all bugfix work towards 2.2.x +1 - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already committed there. +1 - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch non binding -1 : The 2.0 user base is still large, most of them just don't yet use the latest 2.0.10. We could just promote 2.2.x as the latest stable release BUT still consider a critical bug-fix branch for 2.0.x 2009/6/30 Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release. Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1 from 2.0? JIRA notes are for the geeks but a general summary would be worthwhile. I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme. Paul On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van Zyljvan...@sonatype.com wrote: On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x line because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and users will probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions happened a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line will still be in widespread use for the next year. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porterbr...@apache.org wrote: Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question about whether to merge to it or not. - Brett On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: Hmm... - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E -- Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead. -- Benjamin Franklin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Christian Edward Gruber christianedwardgru...@gmail.com http://www.geekinasuit.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
That's all fine, I'm just saying that 2.0.10 has been out for a while now without any serious show stoppers that I'm aware of. 2.0.9 and 2.0.10 are very stable, I would rather see effort spent on the 2.2.x line instead. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Christian Gruberchristianedwardgru...@gmail.com wrote: +1 to Nicholas' assessment. Too many firms I've worked with won't be changing to 2.1/2.2 until it's been in production release for several months, and probably won't trust it. They'll need critical bug support on 2.0. We just need a window for migration, that's all. cheers, Christian. On Jun 30, 2009, at 9:52 AM, nicolas de loof wrote: Brett Porter wrote: - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch - +1 - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all bugfix work towards 2.2.x +1 - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already committed there. +1 - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch non binding -1 : The 2.0 user base is still large, most of them just don't yet use the latest 2.0.10. We could just promote 2.2.x as the latest stable release BUT still consider a critical bug-fix branch for 2.0.x 2009/6/30 Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release. Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1 from 2.0? JIRA notes are for the geeks but a general summary would be worthwhile. I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme. Paul On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van Zyljvan...@sonatype.com wrote: On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x line because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and users will probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions happened a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line will still be in widespread use for the next year. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porterbr...@apache.org wrote: Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question about whether to merge to it or not. - Brett On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: Hmm... - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E -- Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead. -- Benjamin Franklin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Christian Edward Gruber christianedwardgru...@gmail.com http://www.geekinasuit.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
I'm also fine with this, just would like to avoid some EOL tag on 2.0 that may be considered as lack of support by some corporate users using (old) maven releases 2009/6/30 Christian Gruber christianedwardgru...@gmail.com No arguments with that statement. Christian. On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Brian Fox wrote: That's all fine, I'm just saying that 2.0.10 has been out for a while now without any serious show stoppers that I'm aware of. 2.0.9 and 2.0.10 are very stable, I would rather see effort spent on the 2.2.x line instead. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Christian Gruberchristianedwardgru...@gmail.com wrote: +1 to Nicholas' assessment. Too many firms I've worked with won't be changing to 2.1/2.2 until it's been in production release for several months, and probably won't trust it. They'll need critical bug support on 2.0. We just need a window for migration, that's all. cheers, Christian. On Jun 30, 2009, at 9:52 AM, nicolas de loof wrote: Brett Porter wrote: - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch - +1 - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all bugfix work towards 2.2.x +1 - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already committed there. +1 - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch non binding -1 : The 2.0 user base is still large, most of them just don't yet use the latest 2.0.10. We could just promote 2.2.x as the latest stable release BUT still consider a critical bug-fix branch for 2.0.x 2009/6/30 Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release. Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1 from 2.0? JIRA notes are for the geeks but a general summary would be worthwhile. I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme. Paul On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van Zyljvan...@sonatype.com wrote: On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x line because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and users will probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions happened a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line will still be in widespread use for the next year. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porterbr...@apache.org wrote: Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question about whether to merge to it or not. - Brett On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: Hmm... - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E -- Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead. -- Benjamin Franklin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Christian Edward Gruber christianedwardgru...@gmail.com http://www.geekinasuit.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
I'll write this up in the site docs, but for now I'll explain here: There are a couple of reasons for moving 2.1 = 2.2 directly. First, we've moved to a requirement on JDK 1.5. While we had decided to do this for 2.1.0, we never enforced it or changed the Maven binaries themselves. To keep from surprising users of 2.1.0 with an abrupt JDK upgrade requirement in 2.1.1, we're just moving to 2.2.0. The other reasons a probably a little more, well, gray. First, we've removed support for version-expression resolution in the POM on install/deploy. You can see MNG-4223 for more discussion on this and a link to a more in-depth exploration of the issue. Also, we've introduced some new default execution IDs for configuring goals that are bound to the lifecycle via package mappings, and for goals executed directly from the command line. These new executionIds represent some new assumptions made by Maven, and conceivably could produce collisions with existing executionIds for users. You can see MNG-3401 and MNG-3203 for more discussion and links to documentation that will eventually land on the Maven website. While I understand your hesitation to move to a 2.2.0-type release, this isn't exactly the same as a 2.0 release. Sure, there are major changes here, but the fact is 2.1.0 was our most tested, scrutinized release to date, and 2.2.0 builds on the two or three problems that appeared in that release. Obviously it's up to you, but I'd highly recommend using 2.2.0. -john Paul Benedict wrote: Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release. Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1 from 2.0? JIRA notes are for the geeks but a general summary would be worthwhile. I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme. Paul On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van Zyljvan...@sonatype.com wrote: On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x line because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and users will probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions happened a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line will still be in widespread use for the next year. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porterbr...@apache.org wrote: Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question about whether to merge to it or not. - Brett On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: Hmm... - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E -- Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead. -- Benjamin Franklin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
On 01/07/2009, at 1:47 AM, nicolas de loof wrote: I'm also fine with this, just would like to avoid some EOL tag on 2.0 that may be considered as lack of support by some corporate users using (old) maven releases Sure, we can use a different name. All I meant EOL to mean here was that we don't plan to make any more releases (unless something is found to be really, horribly, wrong). EOD (end of development) is probably more appropriate. It'd still be supported (in our case, I think that means accepting bugreps against 2.0.x) for some time yet. - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Brett Porterbr...@apache.org wrote: On 01/07/2009, at 1:47 AM, nicolas de loof wrote: I'm also fine with this, just would like to avoid some EOL tag on 2.0 that may be considered as lack of support by some corporate users using (old) maven releases Sure, we can use a different name. All I meant EOL to mean here was that we don't plan to make any more releases (unless something is found to be really, horribly, wrong). EOD (end of development) is probably more appropriate. Exactly, and IMO, we're at that point today with 2.0.10 It'd still be supported (in our case, I think that means accepting bugreps against 2.0.x) for some time yet. - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Brett Porter wrote: - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch - +1 - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all bugfix work towards 2.2.x +1 - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already committed there. +1 - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch +1 Let's move forward and get focused on Maven 2.2+. Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Hmm... - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
+4 also Cheers, Arnaud # Arnaud Héritier # http://blog.aheritier.net On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Benjamin Bentmann benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu wrote: Brett Porter wrote: - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch - +1 - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all bugfix work towards 2.2.x +1 - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already committed there. +1 - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch +1 Let's move forward and get focused on Maven 2.2+. Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Myself, I prefer to create a branch only when I need it. If one day we need to work on 2.0.x, we'll start a new branch copied from the last tag. We have already in SVN many branches for which we don't know if they are useful or not. Cheers, Arnaud # Arnaud Héritier # http://blog.aheritier.net On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote: Hmm... - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
+4 Brett Porter wrote: With the 2.2.0 release coming up, I've started to find the amount of merging (and consistency of it) is becoming harder, and I think it might be inevitable that there'll be confusion from users about what release is the right one to use. I'd like to suggest the following: - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch - there seems no point in releasing 2.1.1 if 2.2.0 is out (2.2.1 could be released for the fixes made that aren't on the RC branch). - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all bugfix work towards 2.2.x - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already committed there. - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch Any concerns with this approach? - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question about whether to merge to it or not. - Brett On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: Hmm... - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porterbr...@apache.org wrote: Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question about whether to merge to it or not. - Brett On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: Hmm... - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
On 30/06/2009, at 12:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote: Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I feel like it's EOL now. There's a couple of useful things in there, and given that they've already been merged up there it seems like a nice way to wrap up the series. I also get the feeling for one reason or another some people are holding off on going past 2.0.x, so as much as anything I think it's a good way to get the message out that it's the last 2.0.x release and that all those fixes and more are included in 2.2.0 (which will already be out). Cheers, Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
With the 2.2.0 release coming up, I've started to find the amount of merging (and consistency of it) is becoming harder, and I think it might be inevitable that there'll be confusion from users about what release is the right one to use. I'd like to suggest the following: - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch - there seems no point in releasing 2.1.1 if 2.2.0 is out (2.2.1 could be released for the fixes made that aren't on the RC branch). - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all bugfix work towards 2.2.x - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already committed there. - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch Any concerns with this approach? - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
