ibatis-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brandon Goodin" <brandon.goo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re: Status of 2.3 Release
Date Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:42:04 GMT
Is this an official vote? If so...
+1

On 12/2/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sold.  +1
>
>
> On 12/2/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's a good idea too.
> >
> > I could sign the 2.2.0 zip and publish it to the mirrors.  I want to add
> the 2.2 PDF docs to it first though.  Then everything for the last DAO
> release (including docs) would be in one place.
> >
> > Sound like a plan?
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/2/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > I think that would be good (of course) :D.
> > >
> > >
> > > Brandon
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's a great point.  I've had similar discussions.
> > > >
> > > > How about this:  Let's do the vote for 2.2. GA right now.  Assuming it
> passes (I don't see why not considering how long it's been out), we update
> 2.1.7 to 2.2 on the website by Monday.
> > > >
> > > > Then, next Friday (7 days) we start the vote for 2.3 GA and give it 7
> more days to settle.  Within two weeks we'll have a 2.2 and a 2.3 GA.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that we should probably GA 2.2 because people are already
> using it, but also because it's the last DAO release...that way we have a
> GA'd final DAO.
> > > >
> > > > Sound good?
> > > >
> > > > Clinton
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin < brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > I'm fine with pushing 2.3. But, I had a conversation on the list
> with someone who feared upgrading to 2.2 because it wasn't GA. This was,
> apparently, a company policy. They need a feature that is available in 2.2
> but will not upgrade because it is not GA. If we do not make 2.2 GA then
> their company policy will continue to hold them up. I guess I don't see a
> reason why we wouldn't make it GA. It has been available for some time with
> fewer bugs than 2.1.7. If I were to blow off any release I'd blow off 2.1.7
> because it conatins more bugs than 2.2.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brandon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My vote is to leave it the way it is.  My conservative, pragmatic
> and adventurous sides are all satisfied by having a single GA release as
> well as the latest "Beta" release available for download.  2.2 is available
> in the past releases if people want it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler < jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this
one:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A great example of selective memory on my part :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to.  But
maybe
> we should let the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days.  If it looks like it
> will fly, then we could do the 2.3 GA vote a little sooner.  The major thing
> in 2.3 was prepared statement caching and I know there's already been some
> public testing of it.  Most of the fixes I did were for esoteric issues.  I
> think 2.3 is pretty solid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the mirrors?
> That wouldn't take much effort now that I know how to sign releases (it was
> a strange trip into command line hacker heaven).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com >
wrote:
> > > > > > > > To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release
makes
> it to GA.  The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible.  We could vote for
> GA on 2.2. right now actually. "
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So a little closer to what Brandon is suggesting.
 However,
> I'm more interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting 2.3 to
> GA.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton
wanted to
> do a new release rather than voting for GA on 2.2.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com
>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3?
2.2 has been
> available for some time and contains several bug fixes over 2.1.7. I would
> also say that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The other thought is that there is no
> guarantee that 2.3 will be GA quality after we get it out there for 2 weeks,
> however unlikely that may be. Thanks for getting this all together!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > B
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and
have everything
> signed and checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the
> .../dist directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@
> and as soon as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able
> to publish the release.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java
release that uses the
> Apache mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release
> policy according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks
> ago.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My release plan looks like this:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to
the mirrors.  2.3
> will superceed 2.2, so no need to post it
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still
the GA release
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks
after 2.3 is
> posted
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll
get it done
> tomorrow.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message