On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Stefan Seelmann <email@example.com> wrote:
I don't insist on those milestone releases. I just find them useful in
this case to be able to release fast, even if not everything is
finished, and to avoid that users think everything is polished.
Anyway, I totally agree with all your other points. So let's go on.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Stefan Seelmann <firstname.lastname@example.org
> <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > Yes this scheme is much more appealing. However I'm not into this
> > milestone designation. I don't really see the point (perhaps someone
> > might show me in this thread). Let me explain my thinking below.
> > To me you either have a release or you don't release. With the httpd
> > scheme above you have no need for milestone releases because 2.0.0,
> > 2.1.0, 2.2.0 ... X.Y.0 are milestones in that they introduce new
> No sure about that, httpd released a 2.3.5-alpha
> Hmmm OK I didn't know that. Regardless though I think the designation is
> unnecessary. The new minor release number inherently represents
> something that has changed by adding new features which may destabilize
> the software. We don't really know how much and if that amount means
> give it an alpha flag. How alpha is alpha?
> Plus with certain tooling this -alpha designator might be an issue. Why
> bother dealing with the risk?
> > features. Hence the minor bump. The micro releases are just bug fix
> > releases that do not introduce new features after the minor
> > ("milestone") release. So this is why this httpd scheme does not need
> > M1, M2 .. a la eclipse style releases.
> I think milestones can be used to indicate that we are on the way to
> 2.0, but it's not ready yet.
> I'm still not convinced of this technique. I know eclipse uses this but
> it's not very appealing to me. I prefer the new Linux kernel scheme
> which fits what I spoke of in the block above.
> As Emmanuel wrote, we have several tasks to do:
> - documentation of the new features
> - update the current documentation
> - update the examples
> - tooling
> - bug fixing
> - renew Open Group certification?
> I'm in doubt we can do this within 3 weeks.
> Well no matter how long that might take people can still build the
> server if they like and we should have nightly builds available for
> testing between these periods. I was a +1 on the switch from doing 1.5.x
> builds to starting to bring forth a 2.0.
> An M1 could indicate to our users: hey, ApacheDS now supports RFC 4533
> replication and CiDIT. Help to test it. Test interoperability with
> OpenLDAP. Provide feedback.
> I think we should just release the 2.0.0 in 3 weeks and let people go
> wild with it.
> And for us it indicates: no more big-bang refactoring till 2.0 GA, but
> we can still modify API during bug fixing.
> The same fits for a 2.0.1 ... 2.0.*. I think we should keep things
> simple here. Just because some projects use this M* scheme that does not
> mean we should too.
> > The next thing we need to talk about is what the major, minor and mico
> > releases signify to our users. Here's how I look at it in terms
> of our
> > user agreement:
> > o major releases do not guarantee interoperability out of the box
> > since internal and external interfaces, db formats, and the entire
> > architecture may change
> > o minor releases guarantee interoperability, interface integrity, db
> > format consistency across releases with architectural stability. New
> > features may be introduced and some features may be enhanced.
> > o micro releases are simple bug fix releases which do not introduce
> > anything new
> Kind 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