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 23:02:08 GMT
I've signed and published 2.2.0 on the mirrors, and updated the downloads
page accordingly.  You'll see it after the next site referesh.  I left it
marked as "beta" because I wasn't sure if our vote was final or not.

If we're ready to go GA, we should probably wait until at least tomorrow to
make the user announcement - to give all the mirrors time to update.  All
that remains to be done is the formal announcement, and change the site to
say GA instead of beta.

Jeff Butler



On 12/2/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +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
> > 2.3 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 2.3is
> > > posted
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully
I'll get it done
> > > tomorrow.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message