On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: > A big +1 from me. > I've been working this way for a while now and it has been really nice thus > far.
Agree - this is all according to Maven and svn best practices, following release branching pattern (e.g. http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.commonpatterns.html). Though I prefer naming branches with 1.x notation (rather than 1.0 or 1.1) since a branch often outlives the version and Maven makes it easy to manage versions and branches. I'll see to it this happens. We can move to 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT rather quickly, then we'll deal with the remaining issues in the next few weeks and during the holidays, I can go over the poms to see that we are ready to release. Kalle > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Kalle Korhonen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On that note, I think we should release 1.0.0. Current Maven >> versioning scheme works "best" with x.x.x numbering (see >> http://mojo.codehaus.org/versions-maven-plugin/version-rules.html). >> It'd also would make sensible to then reserve the incremental version >> (the last component) for bug fixes and allow using minor versions for >> new (compatible) feature releases. In essence, after releasing 1.0.0, >> we'd prepare the trunk for development of 1.1.0 and create 1.0.x >> branch for bug fixes and continue feature development, bug fixes etc. >> in the trunk until we identify a feature set we don't want to or won't >> make it to the next release, at which time we'd pull a 1.1x branch and >> update the trunk for development of 1.2.x (or even 2.0.x). >> >> Kalle >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree that we're long >>> overdue for our first release ;) >>> >>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to take a crack >>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues that >>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that, I'd like to >>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to speak-up if >>> they see something that they think should be included but I missed. >>> >>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what should concretely >>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as possible from >>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can finish all >>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January. >>> >>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this, otherwise, I'll >>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing issues. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Les >>> >> >
