geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: [discuss] branch and tag policy (and stable/unstable mixed in :)
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:46:40 GMT
A rose by any other name...

On 9/19/2005 7:27 PM, 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?
>
> Jeff
>
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> I agree with Jeremy and Aaron.  I think we need some additional 
>> performance work in addition to the console and probably some minor 
>> features.  I'd prefer to make this V0.9.5 that is certified as a 
>> technology preview  with a statement that the console and other 
>> features will be coming in the next release which is 1.0.0.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>



Mime
View raw message