+1 My opinion is that I'd like to only deal with RC releases for 1.1 or later if the dev team feels like it.
Les On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think it's mostly for perception. We've waited a _long_ time to >> release 1.0 and I think a 1.0.0-RC1 release would feel like "oh here >> we go - 1.0 is _still_ not ready?". We've worked a lot on stability >> such that I don't foresee many bugs cropping up, so it shouldn't be a >> big deal to go from 1.0.0 to 1.0.X quickly if necessary. >> Also, I don't know that Maven's release plugin works well with >> suffixes after the point version - it auto-increments point numbers or >> minor revision numbers automatically based on the previous number. I >> think the RC stuff would kind of screw that up, no? > > Maven's release plugin would work with any version number. However, > versioning Maven artifacts currently "works best" with 3-digit > numbering scheme. It guarantees the right automatic resolution for > example in a case where version ranges are used. Not entirely my > opinion only, but RCs are a way to cope with the imperfections of > doing blind releases - the final artifact is built only once and then > released. If there are issues that could not have been foreseen, you > have spin off a new release to fix them. Now, the staged release fixes > this problem by allowing a limited number of users to examine the > final artifact before it's being release to the wild. In practice, the > right process depends on the scope of changes, the size of the > existing user base, your confidence in the test suite etc. Maven, for > example uses both RCs and staged releases since the user base is so > large that any little issue would generate a lot of flak. While > there's been a few interface changes lately, Shiro has enjoyed(?) a > long sink-in time with the snapshots releases, so going with plain > 1.0.0 release is the right choice in my opinion. > > Kalle > > >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Tauren Mills <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm curious why you wouldn't do release candidates, such as 1.0.0-RC1, >>> 1.0.0-RC2 and have 1.0.0 GA be the final accepted release. This isn't a >>> complaint, do it however you wish, I'm just interested to know the >>> reasoning. >>> >>> Tauren >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected] >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Craig L Russell >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > Great to hear that you're ready to "crack off" a release. You need to >>>> > decide: >>>> > Is this a final release or some early access or beta thing? >>>> > What tools will you use to create the release artifacts? >>>> > Will you release binaries or just sources (most Java projects release >>>> both >>>> > binary and source). >>>> > Who is going to be the release manager? >>>> >>>> I'll take this. Assuming Les is fine it, I'll be the release manager. >>>> This is a 1.0.0 GA release. We are going to release with Maven using >>>> the staged release process so we'll have some time to test the final >>>> artifact before its being released publicly and while it's being vote >>>> upon. If we find blockers, we'll abandon the release and do a new >>>> point release - 1.0.1 etc. until the staged release is accepted. While >>>> I haven't cut any Apache releases before, I'm fairly familiar with >>>> Tapestry's releases which use the same process and I've done staged >>>> releases with Maven/Nexus before. >>>> >>>> Kalle >>>> >>>> >>>> > After you know what to release and who is going to create the release >>>> > artifacts, you can proceed to step 2: creating the release artifacts. >>>> There >>>> > are many examples of releases from incubation that you should probably >>>> study >>>> > and then volunteer to cut the release(s). >>>> > >>>> > The first release of a podling is normally reviewed by a small number of >>>> > really dedicated volunteers who find many trivial-sounding problems that >>>> in >>>> > fact are very important. But whoever volunteers to be the release manager >>>> > should expect between two and five attempts before passing muster for an >>>> > official Apache incubating release. >>>> > >>>> > Craig >>>> > >>>> > On May 13, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> We're working on it! :) >>>> >> >>>> >> Seriously though - I think we can be code complete today. After that >>>> >> is finished, I was going to ping the list to ask the Mentors how we go >>>> >> about starting the voting process. Since we might be able to start >>>> >> this tomorrow, could you fill us in a bit on how this works? >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks! >>>> >> >>>> >> Les >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> :) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> We've been at this for quite some time. I've been approached by people >>>> >>> wondering when this is going to happen. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I think that a release would be a good idea. Thoughts? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Regards, >>>> >>> Alan >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> > Craig L Russell >>>> > Architect, Oracle >>>> > http://db.apache.org/jdo >>>> > 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] >>>> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>> >> >
