well yeah. write the text now, and the code examples later. or is that too unmanageable?
but according to the roadmap we are releasing 1.4 fairly soon. can you put off the chapters that are affected by this? we do need to work around you to some degree because the book is an important asset, so you need to tell us what will absolutely not work for you and what you can live with. -igor On 3/7/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right, how are we gonna compile that? Doesn't work like that. We have a source tree in sync with the examples. Eelco On 3/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so write the models against 2.0. they will be exactly the same in > 1.4branch. code examples i guess you can leave for later? > > -igor > > > On 3/7/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > A very big problem for Martijn and me is actually that we can't go on > > with writing until 1.4 is created. Models are everywhere in the book, > > including a separate chapter, and they are based on the 2.0 models > > currently. Martijn and me would have to decide on whether to target > > 1.4 or 1.5 but it would be either of them. Freezing the writing for a > > few weeks is really unacceptable for us. I understand your problems of > > accepting the model change for 1.3, but if it doesn't get in there - > > which is fine - Martijn and me need that 1.4 branch fast. > > > > Eelco > > > > > > On 3/7/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This sounds good to me. The main point of critique I can think of is > > > that so far we haven't be able to do releases very fast. So in that > > > sense, the time schedule is probably very unrealistic. However, there > > > is nothing I would like more then us to be able to actually *do* > > > releases fast, so if this is another carrot on a stick to make *that* > > > happen, I'm all for it. > > > > > > Eelco > > > > > > > > > On 3/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > pasted from almaw's email on @user > > > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > -------------------------- 8>< > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > In my opinion we could, within the next: > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > > 1 week - Push 1.3-betas as-is. > > > > 2/3 weeks - Bug fix as people test it and push out rc's when > > > > we feel it's solid and stable. > > > > 4 weeks - Rename 1.x branch to 1.3.x. > > > > - Release 1.3.0 final and put 1.3.x immediately into > > > > maintenance mode. > > > > - Create 1.4.x branch from 1.3.0 tag. > > > > - Merge the model changes from trunk to 1.4.x. > > > > - Backport anything else from trunk to 1.4.x that's > > > > not JDK5-specific. > > > > 6 weeks - Push out 1.4-betas > > > > 7/8 weeks - Push out 1.4-rc's > > > > 9 weeks - Push out 1.4.0 final > > > > - Create 1.5.x branch from 1.4.0 tag. > > > > - Backport/add generics, covariance and other JDK 5 trunk > > > > features to the 1.5.x branch. > > > > - Move trunk to "2.0_deprecated_-_use_1.5.x_instead" > > > > 14+ weeks - Release 1.5.0 > > > > > > > > Suggestions to make this work: > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > We won't backport from 1.4.x -> 1.3.x. > > > > We won't actively develop trunk. > > > > We will push 1.4 out very soon after 1.3, and encourage migration. > > > > We will have this in a public roadmap so people can see it coming. > > > > > > > > Notes on what you think is insanity, but actually isn't: > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > > We will of course end up with five(!) branches (1.2.x, 1.3.x, 1.4.x, > > > > 1.5.x and what's currently trunk). This may seem like madness to you, > > > > but I reckon it isn't: > > > > > > > > During 1.3 development, 2.x is low activity, 1.2.x negligible. > > > > During 1.4 development, 1.3.x and 2.x are low, 1.2.x negligible. > > > > During 1.5 development, only 1.4.x will also be quite active. > > > > > > > > Once 1.5.0 is out, we can properly deprecate 2.0. People currently > > using > > > > it may not like being told to migrate to 1.5.x, but that shouldn't be > > > > too hard (much less hard than going from 1.3->2.0) and there shouldn't > > > > be too many of them. I guess that's the price you sometimes pay for > > > > using unreleased software. :-/ > > > > > > > > I'd envisage 1.4.x will require some backports from 1.5.x. We'd > > > > obviously encourage core developers and patchers to upgrade their > > sites > > > > to use 1.5.x, do active development on that, and therefore try to only > > > > ever backport from 1.5.x to 1.4.x, not forward-port the other way > > around. > > > > > > > > If you think I'm smoking crack, the above is utterly unreasonable, you > > > > want to kick me out of the gang, or you have any better ideas or > > > > suggestions as to how to keep everyone happy, please shout now. :-) > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Alastair > > > > > > > > > >
