Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Message-ID: <432F73A4.5010204@savoirtech.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:27:48 -0600
From: Jeff Genender <jgenender@savoirtech.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] branch and tag policy (and stable/unstable mixed in
 :)
References: <604FADE8-DA00-46F9-9078-DDBECA0832BD@apache.org>
	 <432F544E.3040802@apache.org>
	 <22CB655C-9B6E-432C-AC27-C4F285C1472F@iq80.com>
 <74e15baa0509191746127fabad@mail.gmail.com> <432F6887.4040204@hogstrom.org>
In-Reply-To: <432F6887.4040204@hogstrom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

+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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>