Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 4183 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2005 00:53:04 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Feb 2005 00:53:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 80806 invoked by uid 500); 7 Feb 2005 00:53:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 80767 invoked by uid 500); 7 Feb 2005 00:53:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 80754 invoked by uid 99); 7 Feb 2005 00:53:02 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of flamefew@gmail.com designates 64.233.170.192 as permitted sender) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (HELO rproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.170.192) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:53:01 -0800 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id f1so669681rne for ; Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:52:59 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=PfsCrnfeyDs/Etimm9OZFDCgUUiSebAw7T/u/vWop5KVTXH0myXSj9qsPUhri2jRddHd7YR3PNj2NQQqESIuoUHT+WbKg+fgBBbGjmvsJvaqnHkLki7cTthtS4lAMGV1BHk3+9B5eMWIjZzmR50ZtsWtydIDm1K98VjwPMdLVPc= Received: by 10.38.59.53 with SMTP id h53mr75930rna; Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:52:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.38.86.51 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:52:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <31cc373605020616525e8b5d30@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 19:52:58 -0500 From: Henri Yandell Reply-To: Henri Yandell To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: [lang] release strategy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I'm very tempted to try the branch then release strategy, and wondered what people thought about the idea. It might suggest a slight change to the version number style: Create 2.1 branch. Make changes to 2.1 branch until we're ready for release. Tag 2.1 branch with 2.1.0 tag. ... later Change 2.1 branch until we're ready for release Tag 2.1 branch with 2.1.1tag. ... later in parallel Change trunk until we're near a release Create 2.2 branch (or 3.0) Change 2.2 until ready Tag 2.2 with 2.2.0 etc. If we called it 2.1-head or something, it wouldn't need the version change, it just feels more logical to go with a 2.1.0 release than a 2.1 one if we use this style of development. Anyway, it seems to me that this fits us more nowadays. We end up with the text package slowing down because it's not planned for the next release, and having to avoid various other bugzilla requests as they're not wanting to be fixed until later. Any thoughts? Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org