Oh geez. I better have 4.1 done before the end of the month :) No I wouldn't
worry about a couple month wait time.
On 5/2/06, Brian K. Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
What I don't want is a protracted delay between releases. If we can push
the doc changes up, merge the rest in with 4.1, and still get out the
door within a couple of months, I'm good. If it'll be much longer than
that, I'd rather push 4.0.3 out end of month, then 4.1 after. Trying to
balance the "too long between releases" and "too short between releases".
I'll look at merging up with the tapestry4/trunk with the changes we
have so far - relieve you of that. ;-) Have tried to stay out of the 4.1
area so I wouldn't step on toes, but it sounds like it at least has
shoes on now (so stepping is possible, but not as painful if it happens
:-))
Brian
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> Hmmm...It is hard to project a 4.1 release date, but I can say that
> most of
> the hard work is done already. It's more a matter of agonizing over how
to
> make this as easy and simple for people to interact with (when
developing
> components) as possible. It's close, but I'm still not happy.
>
> Since documentation can always be updated independently of a
release(unless
> it's documentation on an unreleased feature ), I'd prefer to just kill
off
> anymore 4.0 releases and concentrate on 4.1.
>
> Merging up sounds like a great idea :) I've been putting off doing
another
> merge since the last time I did one I somehow managed to blow away a lot
of
> work without even noticing. (which subsequently caused many precious
hours
> to be lost ) The longer the merges stay out of sync the worse in my
> opinion.
> 4.1 is stable enough that I don't think anything I'm doing will affect
> anyone unless they try to code to the new API interface features while
I'm
> still changing them.
>
> That's my take on it. I'd prefer to have more pressure on getting 4.1
> out as
> well to be honest. If people start depending on changes made only to 4.1
> and
> I'm the only one holding things up it'll make peer pressure do more of
its
> magical work :)
>
> On 5/1/06, Brian K. Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> Hmmm...
>
> What is your projected timeframe for a 4.1 release?
>
> Reason I ask: If it's going to be a while, would your sentiment still
> hold true if I were to take on the responsibility of merging the 4.0.X
> changes into your 4.1? Especially for 4.0.3 (what has been resolved and
> is currently in JIRA slated for 4.0.3), most of the changes are
> documentation - but some of that documentation is in Javadoc. There are
> still more changes that Andy and I have marked for 3.0.5 and 4.0.3 -
> some of which add (small?) features (which prompted my question about
> whether it should be 4.1 instead of 4.0.3) but is still backward
> compatible.
>
> If it's decided to go with the X.Y.Z method of release numbering (which
> I believe is pretty standard across the board), would it change anything
> to move your work to 4.2 and release 4.1 with what's currently marked
> 4.0.3? Again, I'd be willing to merge up with you instead of you merging
> back from us.
>
> ("compelling" is always very subjective. :-))
>
> Brian
>
> Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
>> If at all possible I'd like to avoid a 4.0.3 release, unless there is a
>> very
>> compelling reason to make one.
>
>> There are still a few svn merges that need to happen from the 4.0.X to
>> 4.1branches but I ~hope~ everything remains backwards compatible as
>> is.
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEV1p6aCoPKRow/gARAmfCAKCTYswpya0dAXifcLSp3G0Gbxs3qwCgkhTc
ot8wEeqMYpa8YYe6i+DxHXw=
=Ja/5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
