directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel L├ęcharny <elecha...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [Release Scheme] Contract/Policy with users for releases
Date Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:36:38 GMT
On 1/5/11 9:25 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecharny@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> If we go for miletsones (ie 2.0-Mx), then I have no problem to try to get
>> OSGi injected. It may postpone the 2.0-GA release, but frankly, I don't
>> think it will cost a lot. Add to this that many OSGi aware peeps are ready
>> to give an hands here.
>>
>>
> +1 then let's just do a 2.0-M1 release. This is great and gets users used to
> the new scheme. Plus we can modify the API without flipping out - the
> contract is clear to users, things will change. And you get the 2.0
> advancing feeling that might help get more adoption into the picture.
>
> I'm liking this a lot!

To me, this is the key. Users know that we have now switched to 2.0, we 
have time to finalize the API, we can do fast milestones releases as 
soon as we are done with one major feature. And they can play with a 2.0 
without having the false feeling that it's stable.

>
>>   building with maven the -SNAPSHOT is turned into the qualifier so we
>>>> just go with 7.3.0-SNAPSHOT and so on til a release and then we go
>>>> with v'year'month'day...we use the v so that it sorts correct with
>>>> things like 7.3.0.RC0, etc..
>>>>
>>>>   Thanks for the input. For the record I too think #1 is the best option
>>> for
>>> us going forward.
>>>
>> Question : how do we propagate the 7.3.0-xxyz versions ? Right now,
>> releasing is a damn complex process which costs us one week (well, let's say
>> 4 days if everything goes fine, vote included).
>>
>> Or is this just equivalent to a nightly build ?
>
> I really have to read this eclipse link you put up. I've never released the
> Eclipse way.
>
> Off the cuff with common sense I am thinking we have for example
> 2.0.0-M1-cmajor.cminor.cmicro for each component where the,
Hmmm, can you clarify ? is the '-' between MA and cmajor part of the 
release name ? Or is just to be seen as a '/' ?

>      cmajor = component major version,
>      cminor = component minor version, and
>      cmicro = component micro version
>
> Adjusting this in our build is easy I think. We can play with it down the
> line if the others agree with this new scheme.
We could also start playing with a side project to see if we can easily 
release using this scheme. We have 2 sides projects like junit-addons 
and doc.


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


Mime
View raw message