directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Last thought about ADS 2.0 before crashing ...
Date Wed, 26 May 2010 09:01:32 GMT
Hi Emm,

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Yeah I think you have a good point - it's been such a long time and this RC
period will help us safely get out of the rut of waiting so long before
another major release.


> 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 ?
>
>
+1 - you have very good points that make total sense - I change my mind
thanks to these.


>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
OK 0.9.20 is safer or at least less non-committal.

Regards,

-- 
Alex Karasulu
My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org
To set up a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/AlexKarasulu

Mime
View raw message