Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
From: Nicolas =?iso-8859-1?q?Lalev=E9e?= <nicolas.lalevee@anyware-tech.com>
Organization: Anyware Technologies
To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Ivy 2.0 planning
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:23:16 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405)
References: <635a05060802281032w1de22ea1jc04b633e2ed5a3df@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <635a05060802281032w1de22ea1jc04b633e2ed5a3df@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200802291023.16918.nicolas.lalevee@anyware-tech.com>

Le jeudi 28 f=E9vrier 2008, Xavier Hanin a =E9crit=A0:
> Hi,
>
> Ivy 2.0 beta 2 being around the corner, I've reviewed some of the current
> open issues in JIRA. I've marked all open bugs to be fixed in 2.0, as I
> would like to make 2.0 final as stable and clean as possible. I even think
> that fixing bugs should be our main focus now toward 2.0 final. The curre=
nt
> feature set is pretty good, so if we don't want to dilute too much our
> effort and the time frame for 2.0 final, I think focusing on bug fix is a
> good option. I don't say we should stop developing features, sometimes we
> may have some needs or specific interest in some new features. Moreover
> fixing bugs is not the most entertaining thing to do, so we'll probably
> need some rest with more interesting stuff :-).
>
> So, do you guys agree with this plan?

+1

Just one note about not stopping adding features.

I follow the Lucene community, and they have an interesting workflow for=20
commits. With every feature or bug fix there is a Jira issue. Then someone =
do=20
a patch and attach it to the issue. So the patch generally get reviewed and=
=20
commented by sevral commiters, a patch is always commited only one or two=20
days after it has been proposed. And in a release period, only bug fix patc=
hs=20
are commited, the feature ones wait the final release to be public.

I don't think we should have a such complete workflow, I don't think there =
are=20
enought active people here, not yet. But at least for new feature in a=20
release period I think it would be a good practice to only do patchs but no=
t=20
commit them.

WDYT ?

Nicolas

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org