directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Last thought about ADS 2.0 before crashing ...
Date Wed, 26 May 2010 08:15:15 GMT
On 5/26/10 8:33 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecharny@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>    
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I did my best to cleanup DIR, shared and a bit of API tonite, there are
>> still some of the associated issue to discuss about.
>>
>> Regarding DIRSERVER, we have 140 opened issues on 2.0.0-RC1, for 33 fixed.
>> We also have 2 fixed issues for 1.5.8. We also have 71 opened issues tagged
>> for 2.0.0.
>>
>> What about removing the 1.5.8 version, merge all the 2.0.0 issues into
>> 2.0.0-RC1, and move the poms version to 2.0.0-RC1?
>>
>>
>>      
> Not that I want to push the issue but did we agree to using RCs. I did not
> get a response to the emails suggesting we just use major.minor.micro
> version numbers.  If you guys agree to this basic approach then we should
> just skip 1.5.8 and push all issues to 2.0.0.
>    
I think that until we reach a point where we have a stable 2.0, we 
should go for 2.0.0-RC1. Then we can abandon this RC stuff.

The reason is that we have a hell lot of things to do in order to be 
production ready for 2.0, including docs and tests (I mean, production 
tests). We are far from having all those guys finished... Also having a 
2.0.0-RC1 will help us to send a message that ADS-2.0-RC1 is finally out 
there, ready to be tested, and we need feedback. If we release a 2.0 (no 
RC1) then we might have negative feedback like "it's crap, don't use it 
!", something we don't want to have for a final version. It *will* take 
time before we stabilize : remember 1.0-RCs ?
>
>    
>> Same question for shared, which is currently on 0.9.19, with a 1.0.0-RC1
>> pending : should we get rid of 0.9.20 ?
>>
>>
>>      
> Same logic here as above. Do away with 0.9.20 and push all issues to 1.0.0.
>   BTW this means locking down our API in shared which might make life harder
> for us since both the server and studio depend on this.  Just means we need
> to take care of deprecations etc.
>    
Shared is a bit different beast here. I was even thinking that we should 
merge shared and the ldap api, as they are the two legs the client and 
the server will stand. We can release a 0.9.20 and postpone 1.0.0.


-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny
www.nextury.com



Mime
View raw message