geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: [discuss] branch and tag policy (and stable/unstable mixed in :)
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:37:09 GMT
Ahh, guys, you do realize that 0.9.x is actually backwards from 1.0-FOO.

If anything, can we at least agree that math will be part of our  
version numbers?

-David

On Sep 19, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> 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