continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jesse McConnell" <jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Updating JIRA
Date Sat, 09 Dec 2006 16:58:49 GMT
By that logic then I think alpha is definitely what we could start
pulling off now and then with some milestones.

I know I really want to get the shortcuts bit that I been promoting on
another thread in place and that is some more api changes...for the
better too since I really want to see the api's from top to bottom
working off of things like projectKeys and groupKeys instead of jpox
id's and freeform string names of things.  I am actually hoping to
spend some of my vacation over xmas working on getting that into
place.

continuum 1.0.3 has been out for a while now and there have been a lot
of tangible improvements that we should get into peoples hands in the
form of the alpha releases.  I figured with labeling of alpha we can
freely change the model if we need to and not worry about migrating
peoples old databases, though that might be good practice to get into
place...

so what do others think?  shall I make an 1.1-alpha-1 version in the
jira and we can get the issues that we want to have really resolved
for that in place?  Target January for a 1.1-alpha-1 release and then
every month after that until we are feature complete and start doing a
beta or two...?

jesse

On 12/9/06, Jason van Zyl <jason@maven.org> wrote:
>
> On 9 Dec 06, at 11:37 AM 9 Dec 06, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>
> > right, last time I brought this up the goal was to resolve all those
> > for an actual 1.1 release..
> >
>
> If that's the case that's cool.
>
> > I would like to see maybe an alpha-1 release in January perhaps
> > followed up a beta or two once all the confirmed new features are in
> > place (like profiles, etc).
> >
>
> I think what is critical and what is not being done is being honest
> about over stability of the product and of the API. Provided the API
> is know to be stable and the stability of the tool itself is good
> then a beta is fine to release. We're labeling stuff like Archiva as
> beta and it's not even close which I can attest to with having to try
> and keep it up on central for the last month. This stuff cannot go
> out as beta in alpha form. People will consume releases, we just have
> to be honest about it.
>
> > I think the decision had not be to actually break out something like
> > alpha and beta releases into jira but for sanities sake perhaps we
> > could reevaluate that.
> >
>
> I think the EAP stuff is fine and that could be considered the alphas
> but I think people like the markers. So EAPs can go out weekly, I
> think that's a good thing but even folks like Intellij releases
> betas. I think they just do the EAP thing for marketing so that it
> doesn't actually say alpha when it really is.
>
> > I know I went through about a month ago and poked through most of the
> > issues making sure they were in the right components at least...but I
> > think actually breaking down further into achievable shorter term
> > goals would be a good thing.
>
> I think so. I mean it will be April before those 163 issues get
> resolved.
>
> Jason.
>
> >
> > jesse
> >
> > On 12/9/06, Jason van Zyl <jason@maven.org> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> If anything is thinking of doing a release of Continuum anytime soon
> >> can you please update Continuum's JIRA so that it's representative of
> >> what's going to be fixed for at least the next release like Kenney
> >> and I have done for Maven itself:
> >>
> >> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG
> >>
> >> I don't think you're doing to be fixing 163 issues for Continuum 1.1.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Jason.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > jesse mcconnell
> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> >
>
>


-- 
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message