geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [discuss] branch and tag policy (and stable/unstable mixed in :)
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:08:41 GMT
Man.  I agree with everyone here, a little :)

I'd love to see the milestone nomenclature abandoned.

I'd also love to see us knock a few corners off and get the console  
working before a 1.0

So ideally, I'd love to see this as 0.9, and we all commit to focus  
on a very quick cycle to 1.0 that has basic console (lets take out  
what doesn't work?) and some final user-facing things like deployment  
stuff.

I think we can fast-rev past 1.0 to add things like hot deployment,  
performance tweaks, etc...

Doing what we are doing now as 0.9 and committing to the next as 1.0  
should focus our attention pretty well. :)

If forced to chose, I'd take 1.0 w/o console now and then work hard  
to get a 1.1 out w/ console....

geir

On Sep 19, 2005, at 8:46 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> You must be joking!!!  Have you tried at the console recently?  It's
> like 50% there.
>
> I'm sorry, I'll be happy to call this RC1 or 0.9 or whatever, but I'm
> WAY not ready to call it 1.0.  There are also a ton of JIRA issues
> that need to be at least looked at before 1.0.  Plus, like it or not,
> I think we really need a hot deploy directory for 1.0 (though there's
> a JIRA with some code for that).  I guess I also think there's going
> to be a lot of attention focused on 1.0, and I want to take advantage
> of that with a great release, not just call whatever we have this week
> "1.0".
>
> Really, if you feel that strongly, call this a beta or RC and let's
> start collecting the feedback we need to make 1.0 outstanding.
>
> Aaron
>
> On 9/19/05, Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
>
>> +100000000000000000000000
>>
>> Hell yeah!
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Before we discuss this to death, I propose:
>>>
>>> * we drop the M5 branch altogether
>>> * we fix any CTS regressions (once rather than twice)
>>>   this also gives Aaron a couple more days to finish up his features
>>> * we create a 1.0 branch
>>> * we make sure it still passes CTS, then tag it and release as 1.0.0
>>>
>>> That way we :
>>> * get rid of the Mx nomenclature that Geir positively dislikes
>>>   and that no-one else really seems to care for
>>> * we don't have any confusion with 1.0-M5.42 branches
>>> * we get onto a major.minor.maint scheme that everyone understands
>>>
>>> and most of all, we actually get 1.0.0 out as the first certified
>>> release like we intended at the start of the project.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



Mime
View raw message