Re: [VOTE] 2.2.0 Alpha on Friday
Andrà Malo wrote: Once forked off, 2.1.x would be *stabilizing* branch, that finally leads to a 2.2.x branch, when we feel, it's stable (svn mv 2.1.x 2.2.x?). From the 2.1.x branch we tag alpha and beta releases; from *stable* 2.2.x rc and stable release. I think that's exactly the point of the odd/even system - 2.2.0 being a GA version. +1 Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [VOTE] 2.2.0 Alpha on Friday
--On Friday, May 13, 2005 9:07 PM +0200 André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Instead of calling it branches/2.1.x, on IRC wrowe suggested going straight to branches/2.2.x, and on further thought I agree. I don't agree. Votes on going straight to 2.2.0-alpha? -0.5 on calling it 2.2.x. I'm seeing it like this: Once forked off, 2.1.x would be *stabilizing* branch, that finally leads to a 2.2.x branch, when we feel, it's stable (svn mv 2.1.x 2.2.x?). From the 2.1.x branch we tag alpha and beta releases; from *stable* 2.2.x rc and stable release. I think that's exactly the point of the odd/even system - 2.2.0 being a GA version. Correct. We should create branches/2.1.x - when we decide that branch is GA, then we rename the directory to 2.2.x and bump the version number inside of there accordingly. Under no circumstances should we release anything called 2.2.0 until it is GA. I see (now :-) that we should have already branched 2.1.x the first time we released a 2.1 version. Per the discussion at ApacheCon, it was said that we would vote on a release that would form the creation of the new branch. However, all of the 2.1.x releases I created were vetoed. -- justin
Re: [VOTE] 2.2.0 Alpha on Friday
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Sander Striker wrote: > Andrà Malo wrote: > > I'm seeing it like this: > > > > Once forked off, 2.1.x would be *stabilizing* branch, that finally leads > > to a 2.2.x branch, when we feel, it's stable (svn mv 2.1.x 2.2.x?). From the > > 2.1.x branch we tag alpha and beta releases; from *stable* 2.2.x rc and > > stable release. I think that's exactly the point of the odd/even system - > > 2.2.0 being a GA version. > > > > I see (now :-) that we should have already branched 2.1.x the first time we > > released a 2.1 version. > > +1. Agreed. +1. It was way too confusing to have 2.0.35 be the first "real" 2.0 release. I do not wish to see us repeat that.
Re: [VOTE] 2.2.0 Alpha on Friday
Sander Striker wrote: > Andrà Malo wrote: > >> I'm seeing it like this: >> >> Once forked off, 2.1.x would be *stabilizing* branch, that finally leads >> to a 2.2.x branch, when we feel, it's stable (svn mv 2.1.x 2.2.x?). >> From the 2.1.x branch we tag alpha and beta releases; from *stable* >> 2.2.x rc and stable release. I think that's exactly the point of the >> odd/even system - 2.2.0 being a GA version. >> >> I see (now :-) that we should have already branched 2.1.x the first >> time we released a 2.1 version. > > > +1. +1
Re: [VOTE] 2.2.0 Alpha on Friday
Andrà Malo wrote: I'm seeing it like this: Once forked off, 2.1.x would be *stabilizing* branch, that finally leads to a 2.2.x branch, when we feel, it's stable (svn mv 2.1.x 2.2.x?). From the 2.1.x branch we tag alpha and beta releases; from *stable* 2.2.x rc and stable release. I think that's exactly the point of the odd/even system - 2.2.0 being a GA version. I see (now :-) that we should have already branched 2.1.x the first time we released a 2.1 version. +1. Sander
Re: [VOTE] 2.2.0 Alpha on Friday
* Paul Querna wrote: > Based on the results from the '[PROPOSAL] Branch 2.1.x on May 13', > there are enough positive votes create the 2.1.x branch on this Friday: > > +1: justin, Brad, Sander, (me) > -1: wrowe > +1, but latter discussed problems: Jim > > Instead of calling it branches/2.1.x, on IRC wrowe suggested going > straight to branches/2.2.x, and on further thought I agree. > > There is little point is calling it 2.1.x, if its only purpose is to > become 2.2.x. If we really want to move forward towards GA, we should > just start on 2.2.x releases, and use the standard -alpha, and -beta > names on the tarbals, until one is good enough for GA. I doubt that the > first alpha will be perfect, but the version numbers are cheap. > > My intention is to roll 2.2.0-alpha on Friday or early Saturday, after > copying trunk to branches/2.2.x. This is different from the original > details of the '[PROPOSAL] Branch 2.1.x on May 13' thread, but the > result is the same. > > Votes on going straight to 2.2.0-alpha? -0.5 on calling it 2.2.x. I'm seeing it like this: Once forked off, 2.1.x would be *stabilizing* branch, that finally leads to a 2.2.x branch, when we feel, it's stable (svn mv 2.1.x 2.2.x?). From the 2.1.x branch we tag alpha and beta releases; from *stable* 2.2.x rc and stable release. I think that's exactly the point of the odd/even system - 2.2.0 being a GA version. I see (now :-) that we should have already branched 2.1.x the first time we released a 2.1 version. nd -- Gib' mal folgendes in die Kommandozeile ein (und einen Moment warten): net send localhost "Buuuh!" Na, erschreckt? -- Markus Becker in mpdsh
