Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-celix-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-celix-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 40B53184D0 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:45:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 4727 invoked by uid 500); 12 Aug 2015 09:45:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-celix-dev-archive@celix.apache.org Received: (qmail 4701 invoked by uid 500); 12 Aug 2015 09:45:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@celix.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@celix.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@celix.apache.org Received: (qmail 4688 invoked by uid 99); 12 Aug 2015 09:45:44 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:45:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 273BADC84B for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:45:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.881 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.881 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s_dw3-o4soQx for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:45:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 4F4D040E1C for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:45:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wijp15 with SMTP id p15so210149228wij.0 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 02:45:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=mNQDeU/aVHe6XHgFfDN5nvDirjkYyPcDVmHuwhGvt+M=; b=Q2WFg9kLK6MWNxXSQKir1nlHys5rNuOL0ojbh3XCERgDaACSdpHQPRO8BUUJuuDZnj 4sC2moKqVGYFOJwQypakRDMhU3WhvZ9oAc1FNuURt4VwaLQ38nvVNCZ+4nVYyOcv7iAD dyhlqJQAaqq+xWTKcLxYc1fz++VDKQXrZPUwBTkn0c/AuR4iO2h7uAD+hZv3aCHWUt0x 34N2eDe6AAf9xZTtjrq4XnRnX4XZRkd6YWuhiXvnj3Xpn+AjJ3KPQwM+/b91mRVeFb8d axR5xDS6KCiJaG3o8ka62QjqzDlMaMwymvWbB0RCwZbqENqMEHlRShMqZaHYmS2Wbopu YPQw== X-Received: by 10.180.102.74 with SMTP id fm10mr46863808wib.25.1439372731547; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 02:45:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Pepijn Noltes Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:45:22 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: 2.0.0 release and alpha releases To: "dev@celix.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444812b5d0763051d1a141e --f46d0444812b5d0763051d1a141e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi All, As result of the release discussion, I started to assign some jira issue for the next release [1]. I would like to propose to work towards the next (stable) release by releasing alpha releases (with small updates). As discussed in previous mails. The alpha release will be created using the git workflow [2]. Meaning that a release branch will be created from the develop branch, for alpha release probably for a short period, which will be eventually pushed to master and tagged. I am not sure what we should use for version numbers. My proposal is to use 2.0.0-alpha1, 2.0.0-alpha2, etc. As roadmap I propose the following: 2.0.0-alpha1 - Remove APR (CELIX-119) - New Depependency Manager (CELIX-210) 2.0.0-alpha2 - Remote Service Admin with libffi (CELIX-237) 2.0.0-alpha3 - celix-bootstrap (using RSA libffi / DepMan ) (CELIX-236) 2.0.0-alpha4 - shell command refactoring (using FILE streams) (CELIX-230) 2.0.0-beta1 - Major bugs / memory leaks [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CELIX/fixforversion/12325955 [2] https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/gitflow-workflow Any thoughts / comments? Greetings, Pepijn --f46d0444812b5d0763051d1a141e--