geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <>
Subject Re: [discuss] branch and tag policy (and stable/unstable mixed in :)
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:53:37 GMT

Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>  > +1 on what Matt says...and i will take it a step further.  Instead of
>  > MX, why not let this next one be the RC1?
>  >
> To me an RCx implies feature freeze and bugfixes only and it doesn't 
> sound like we mean that here given the console is "50%" done.

I don't agree here...IMHO RCx means you are on the way to a 1.0 and you 
are getting "previews" of what is in there.  But to add on to what you what point do we say "feature freeze" and this is what will be 
in 1.0?  Right now we appear to be shooting randomly as to which is 
what, and in what release.  Why can't we delegate back to our roadmap 
(or a roadmap) and state what will be in each release going forward? 
i.e.  M5 will have these items...and 1.0 will have those items?  I think 
its important that we spell out what will be in 1.0 final.  We could 
debate this all day...but unless we give ourselves some targets, we will 
never know when we have achieved our goals.

So let me take back my RCx statement.  I would think we let this last M5 
go (because we promised it and have already went through the motions), 
and then define what is 1.0.  Lets do the RCx...minimum 2 rounds (RC1 
and RC2), and try to target a date for 1.0.

> Actually, if that is the state of the console then it is going to be 
> months before it is ready. That means if we go down the "0.9.x" route 
> then we're going to see several releases on that branch.
> Ship and be biled...
> -- 
> Jeremy

View raw message