9 weeks is definitley too long for current 2.0 users to wait before. We all know that 1 week in developer terms is 2 or 3 human weeks, so this really leaves us high and dry with no viable codebase for a long period of time. I'm sure for most of us that means backporting to 1.3, then forwardporting again to 1.5. That will be really unpleasant -- please don't do that!
On 3/8/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
exactly my point. On 3/8/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > this feels too aggressive to me if 1.3 is to be released through > apache. we > want our first apache release to be the best it can be, not as fast as it > can be because we've been promising it for a while. let's give ourselves > a > break and take the extra days it takes to backport model changes and > important features to 1.3. if it takes even another month, it's still > better because our story of what to use is more understandable... 1.4should > really just be 1.3 + generics changes. that's very simple to explain. > > btw, let's not kick ourselves for working on 2.0 for a long time and > falling > behind our earlier promises of scheduling. unpredictable things have > happened and these kinds of things happen even on the best projects. to > our > great credit, we've shown a willingness to evaluate our own work, suck it > up > and kill our darlings, as someone said. that's what makes something > great. > let's not push out a 1.3 that's less than it should be to meet a schedule > we > simply couldn't meet due to unforseen circumstances. i vote to slow down > in > spite of any scheduling pressure we may be feeling. > > jon > > > igor.vaynberg 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 > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/roadmap-tf3366743.html#a9372002 > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
