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,
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
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
+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
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
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),
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 -
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
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
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
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
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
-
+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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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
-
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:
+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
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
+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
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
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
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
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
34 matches
Mail list logo
