maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Raphaël Piéroni" <raphaelpier...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [vote] Version for pending release
Date Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:32:52 GMT
+0.99 for 1
+0.01 for 2

I really like 2.0.10 to be 2.1.0-M1 but i dislike the name i would
prefer 2.1.0-beta-1
I don't have found any document stating which pre x.y.z (with x, y, z
integers) standard maven follows.

Raphaël


2008/8/29, John Casey <jdcasey@commonjava.org>:
> Okay,
>
>  Let's put it to a vote. We have two options:
>
>  1. Release the current release candidate as milestone 1 of the 2.1.0
> codeline. The version for this release would be 2.1.0-M1.
>
>  The advantage of this approach is that it keeps is (relatively) focused on
> only three simultaneous codebases, not four. It provides a stable foundation
> for building out a small set of new features for a final GA release of
> 2.1.0. This release will have no new features, and its only goal is backward
> compatibility with the maximum stability possible. To me, this isn't enough
> to distinguish it from 2.0.x. However, the implementation details are such
> that it deserves to be separate.
>
>  The disadvantage is that a -M1 release may not attract as many users, and
> the performance/stability gains may not be compelling enough to overcome the
> psychological barrier of moving from 2.0.9 to 2.1.0-M1.
>
>  2. Release the current release candidate as 2.1.0 GA.
>
>  The advantage here is that the work we've put into stabilizing this RC is
> probably more worth of a GA release, and by calling it 2.1.0 we can tell our
> users how solid we think it is. Additionally, calling this 2.1.0 means that
> the only thing we could do for 2.1.1, 2.1.2, etc. would be to fix any
> regressions that cropped up without adding risk from new features.
>
>  The major disadvantage is that it will mean that some of us are adding new
> features to 2.2.0 (parent-versioning, reactor changes, etc.) while others
> are trying to push out regression fixes on 2.0.x and 2.1.x, while still
> others are introducing large-scale changes on the 3.0.x branch. I'm
> personally not sure we can drive four parallel codelines to release in a
> timely manner.
>
>  So, let's vote. Just indicate whether you support #1 or #2.
>
>  My vote is for #1.
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  -john
>
>  --
>  John Casey
>  Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
>  Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Mime
View raw message