Tomcat's 4.1 experience was that only every sixth release or so was voted
GA, at least for the first several.
I think if you look at the various Betas and RCs most Jakarta products go through, six would be the mode. So, this seems pretty typical.
I think it's unlikely to pass a GA vote, simply because ripping out all the deprecated stuff is a fairly major amount of surgery, and we might have missed something. But we'll see.
Which is the beauty of this system. If it turns out to be GA after-all, we just need to update the links. CVS remains the same.
Absolutely. One missing detail in the plan, though, is whether we branch on each 1.2.x release. Tomcat doesn't and I don't see a reason to since we would probably never go back and try a 1.2.5.1 release to fix something in 1.2.5.
Agreed. The release scheme implies that you wouldn't reissue a release. At most, you'd issue a patch based on the CVS tag. But more likely, you'd fix 1.2.5 with 1.2.6, and demote 1.2.5 if there was a serious issue.
Another thing Remy does for Tomcat (which I *really* appreciate) is keeps a running change log (summary, not detailed) in the release notes for each version. That way, everyone can get a quick summary of what's changed. I'd like this kind of thing to be part of the release manager's responsibilities.
Once upon a time, I did a lot of this when we were ramping up for a milestone, but burned out during the 1.1 campaign. I agree that this is important, and so will bring us current for 1.x -> 1.2.x.
I'm also thinking we should make a concerted effort to apply or discount any outstanding patches developers have submitted. There's at least 21 of these now.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=VERIFIED&email1=&emailtype1=substring&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=substring&emailreporter2=1&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&product=Struts&short_desc=&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&keywords=PatchAvailable&keywords_type=anywords&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&cmdtype=doit&order=Bug+Number
We may not have a fix for an outstanding issue yet, but we really should honor any outstanding contributions.
I'm a zero-relative guy at heart :-). My only concern is that people will assume 1.2.0 really means 1.2, but I'd be happy with either 1.2.0 or 1.2.1.
I think we should assume that people will make wrong assumptions no matter what we do, so let's just start with zero, as Cantor intended. =:0)
-Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
