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 (athena.apache.org: domain of xavier.hanin@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.46.158 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references;
        b=vHpWUqSj+YYy3Jz34YdrCLMXOLRluIhQhdHC3Rlp0kN0COx44iTObCgcesz8uAEww+
         TXvcGw1gi8A7/UPGfBJylsRVxz6vDjUsvR69Tv0HTQ4DrQ+EuAKUTr59A5777jiaF99W
         4xjffqmMjhXHnlMgApVQMPgmxiihtBO2wYcgE=
Message-ID: <635a05060809170037l4938082ct4d9562af2d71cc35@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:37:05 +0200
From: "Xavier Hanin" <xavier.hanin@gmail.com>
To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Fix for IVY-905
In-Reply-To: <444765.91739.qm@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_9205_32618508.1221637025627"
References: <444765.91739.qm@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

------=_Part_9205_32618508.1221637025627
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Maarten Coene <maarten_coene@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Xavier,
>
> you've merged that fix into the 2.0.x branch. Does this mean it will be
> included in the 2.0.0 final release?

It means it will be included in next 2.0.x release... So if we need a new rc
before releasing 2.0.0 final, yes, it will be included. If we don't need
one, we'll promote rc1 to final, and thus will start the 2.0.0 final release
branch from the 2.0.0-rc1 branch, on which I've not merged the fix.

Here are the rules I think we can setup on where commits can go:
- if the commit is an improvement or new feature, not deeply impacting
current architecture, commit on trunk.
- if the commit is a bug fix with no potential side effect (like IVY-905),
commit on trunk and merge on 2.0.x
- if the commit is a bug fix with potential side effect, commit on trunk,
discuss the potential side effects, and merge on 2.0.x if we agree it's
worth it

With this strategy 2.0.x branch should go straight on a stabilization road
only, while trunk let us still evolve on trunk toward what will probably be
2.1.

If somebody wants to make changes with deep impact on Ivy architecture, I
think we'd need to discuss it first, and see if creating a 3.0.x branch
would be worth it. But I think we should better focus on 2.x for now.


Does this plan sound ok for you?

Xavier


>
>
> Maarten
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Xavier Hanin <xavier.hanin@gmail.com>
> To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:03:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ivy 2.0.0-rc1 Release
>
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Xavier Hanin <xavier.hanin@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > It seems IVY-905 is a blocking issue in this first attempt for rc1, so
> I'll
> > have to make a new attempt for rc1 with Maarten's fix. We'll try to find
> a
> > fix for the cygwin related issues too in the same time before making this
> > new attempt. I should cast a new vote tomorrow, so wait for it before
> > reviewing.
> >
> Ok, I think maarten and I analysis yesterday evening was made too quickly.
> the fix for IVY-905 Maarten checked in is only a fix for the Configurator
> class, which has no impact on how Ivy behave. Indeed, the fix impact the
> FileResolver used by default in Configurator, but the only place where
> Configurator is used in Ivy is in XmlSettingsParser, where the file
> resolver
> is immediately set to another FileResolver implementation, which works
> properly (except maybe on cygwin when you use unix like paths, but it seems
> Java is not aware of the cygwin environment).
>
> Thus I don't think this require a new attempt for 2.0.0-rc1, we can go on
> with the binaries I've uploaded yesterday and on which I already cast a
> vote.
>
> That being said, this discussion has added noise to the vote thread, so if
> somebody think we'd better start a new vote (loosing one day for the final
> decision), let me know as soon as possible.
>
> Xavier
>
>
> >
> > Xavier
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Xavier Hanin <xavier.hanin@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I have built a release candidate for Ivy 2.0.0-rc1
> >>
> >> You can download it from this URL:
> >> http://people.apache.org/~xavier/ivy/staging/2.0.0-rc1/
> >>
> >> A maven 2 staging repo with this release is available here:
> >> http://people.apache.org/~xavier/m2-staging-repo/
> >> A staging eclipse update site with this release is available here:
> >> http://people.apache.org/~xavier/updatesite-staging/
> >> The bundle version is 2.0.0.cr1.
> >>
> >> Do you vote for the release of these binaries?
> >>
> >> [ ] Yes
> >> [ ] No
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Xavier, Ivy 2.0.0-rc1 release manager
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
> > BordeauxJUG co leader - http://www.bordeauxjug.org/
> > Blogger - http://xhab.blogspot.com/
> > Apache Ivy Creator - http://ant.apache.org/ivy/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
> BordeauxJUG co leader - http://www.bordeauxjug.org/
> Blogger - http://xhab.blogspot.com/
> Apache Ivy Creator - http://ant.apache.org/ivy/
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
BordeauxJUG co leader - http://www.bordeauxjug.org/
Blogger - http://xhab.blogspot.com/
Apache Ivy Creator - http://ant.apache.org/ivy/

------=_Part_9205_32618508.1221637025627--