cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release CXF 2.0-incubator-RC
Date Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:50:01 GMT
Balancing is hard... it's what makes pure open source
in some ways more "difficult" than commercial proprietary
s/w. Open Source should not have "schedules"... the code
is ready when it is ready. Forced timetables should be

With all that said, one also needs to recall that you have
a user (and developer) community to handle as well...
It does not serve Yoko (or anyone) to "rush" CXF just
so "they have something", but neither can you ignore
that either... A Release Candidate should mean just
that: it's a potential release. If it isn't, then
don't call it that, or don't release it yet.

On Apr 26, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Glynn, Eoghan wrote:

> Sure we all want to get the release out ASAP.
> We also all obviously want the release to be the highest quality
> possible.
> So we've got to strike a balance, in terms of weighing up the known
> issues versus the pressures for a quick release.
> I'm not being argumentative, or trying to slow down the release, just
> requesting that we make an explicit trade-off between releasing with
> known issues and taking the time to fix these. I'm not talking  
> weeks or
> months here. For example, if was to take a couple days to clean up the
> Spring createdFromAPI versus suffix inconsistency, then I think this
> would be worth doing. IMO our plethora of config options is already
> confusing enough without users having to contend with this  
> inconsistency
> also.
> Just my 2 euro-cents ...

View raw message