Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-maven-continuum-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 40979 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2006 17:27:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Dec 2006 17:27:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 37121 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2006 17:27:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-maven-continuum-dev-archive@maven.apache.org Received: (qmail 37104 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2006 17:27:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact continuum-dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: continuum-dev@maven.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list continuum-dev@maven.apache.org Received: (qmail 37093 invoked by uid 99); 9 Dec 2006 17:27:57 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 09:27:57 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [63.246.7.148] (HELO mail.maven.org) (63.246.7.148) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 09:27:40 -0800 Received: (qmail 19564 invoked by uid 89); 9 Dec 2006 17:27:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ????????IPv6:::1?) (jason@maven.org@127.0.0.1) by mail.maven.org with ESMTPA; 9 Dec 2006 17:27:19 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jason van Zyl Subject: Re: Updating JIRA Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:27:13 -0500 To: continuum-dev@maven.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 9 Dec 06, at 11:58 AM 9 Dec 06, Jesse McConnell wrote: > 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... Exactly, you can't rope everyone into using something by labeling it a beta and then find out you really require and model/API change. You'll probably get fewer people trying out and alpha but I think think enough to help shape things toward what they need to be. > > 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...? Sounds good. I would like to see 1.1 out as fast as possible too but you need to get some feedback. Jason. > > jesse > > On 12/9/06, Jason van Zyl 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 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 >