On 5/2/07, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought Ant's suggestion was just 0.90 and not beta anything. I can
live with this. I don't think we are ready yet to call it beta 1.0
or beta1 1.0.
Simon
haleh mahbod wrote:
why does it matter if we call it beta1 or beta .90? It is a
+1 for 0.90
- Venkat
On 5/2/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all the
readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on beta1
so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still
gives
It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all the
readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on beta1
so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still
gives space for more releases before the final 1.0.
...ant
On 5/1/07,
+1 on 0.90
On 5/2/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all the
readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on beta1
so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still
gives space for
why does it matter if we call it beta1 or beta .90? It is a variation of
what we call beta. The fact that there is a number after Beta is an
indication that there might be revisions of Beta anyway before 1.0 release
is reached.
On 5/2/07, Ignacio Silva-Lepe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 on 0.90
I thought Ant's suggestion was just 0.90 and not beta anything. I can
live with this. I don't think we are ready yet to call it beta 1.0
or beta1 1.0.
Simon
haleh mahbod wrote:
why does it matter if we call it beta1 or beta .90? It is a variation of
what we call beta. The fact that there
I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting
mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in
that we should be careful what we call beta. I know that we all
would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can,
but I don't think we
Both of these seem like useful suggestions. There's a scheduled IRC next
Monday so lets discuss the release contents at that, in the meantime people
could add their names to wiki items [1] for things that they want to get
into the next release.
...ant
[1]
On 4/25/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On 4/24/07, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
beta) or whether it is
On 4/24/07, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
beta) or whether it is more important to attain a true beta level
of quality even if that takes a little bit
I've got to the point where I have packaged up a new beta1 SDO java release
candidate in the style if the last one [1], but that's only part of the
process now that I have to set up a remote maven repository as a staging
post for the deployed release candidate artifacts (as per the recent
Ant,
thanks for the pointers here. I am persisting with this, but I thought
I'd just post an update as this doesn't seem to be working as it should. I
have two main problems, one is when attempting to deploy the SDO tools jar
by command -- see [1], the maven command removes the pom i'm
A working release that is closer to 1.0 spec version sooner would be better
than having more content and a later release. M2 is old now and has
issues.
Should IRC be used for a discussion on release or maybe we should update
the Wiki page with (IN/Out) comment to help you? If an item has
Ant,
your note is well timed as I've had a couple of off-line chats with people
in the last week about release naming, particularly with regard to the
effect that a milestone or alpha name can have on uptake of a release. In
the IRC chat of 16th April [1] we reached a conclusion that given the
On 4/24/07, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ant,
your note is well timed as I've had a couple of off-line chats with
people
in the last week about release naming, particularly with regard to the
effect that a milestone or alpha name can have on uptake of a release. In
the IRC chat of
ant elder wrote:
What are we going to be calling this next SCA release?
We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are talking
about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was
some
discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha
+1
As for DAS, as it has dependencies on SDO, I'd propose to follow the same
name convention as SDO, and use beta1 as well.
On 4/24/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
What are we going to be calling this next SCA release?
We've had M1 and M2 releases, some
+1.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What
should be in it)
+1
As for DAS, as it has dependencies
longer.
Simon
Raymond Feng wrote:
+1.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message - From: Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What
should be in it)
+1
19 matches
Mail list logo
