ibatis-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Butler" <jeffgbut...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re: Status of 2.3 Release
Date Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:44:05 GMT
+1

On 12/2/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 2.3to
> > 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