geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: [discuss] branch and tag policy (and stable/unstable mixed in :)
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:46:38 GMT
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