myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Abrams, Howard A" <Howard.Abr...@ca.com>
Subject RE: Plan for 1.1.2?
Date Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:39:43 GMT
I think there are several points of confusion here, and I'm not sure on
whose part.

The version number in JIRA is listed as 'fix-for', which to me meant
that is the version we plan to fix the issue in. The 'road map' lists
future versions and the issues that are planned for each. One version
does not a roadmap make. :)

Without listing what issues we are planning on fixing in the future and
when, those who depend on MyFaces have no insight into what is going on,
and no basis to express the priority of an issue or know when to expect
a fix. My categorization of what issue was to be fixed when was meant
only as a starting point for a conversations on prioritizing the issues.
Those on the dev list could look at the two version and make reasonable
informed opinions on what should be moved when. 

But what I'm most confused about is the state of JIRA now; There was a
'nightly' version which I numbered (because we aren't planning on fixing
those in the nightly, we're planning on fixing them in the next
version). Now it's been archived and the next versions (1.1.3, which
isn't the upcoming version) ahs been listed as nightly. I think that was
a mistake, no? I think if you meant to put things back, you would have
renamed 1.1.2 to nightly, right?

So, after all this, we're back to the original question:  Which bugs are
to be fixed before we can start to release 1.1.2? And how would a
user/developer know unless they are listed in the "Road Map"?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Schofield [mailto:sean.schofield@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:03 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: Plan for 1.1.2?
> 
> OK I changed 1.1.3 back to nightly for now.  I also "archived" the
> 1.1.2 release.  This way users can't report issues against this
> version but the issues that Howard assigned to 1.1.2 have been
> preserved.
> 
> sean
> 
> On 11/21/05, Bruno Aranda <brunoaranda@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do also think that this can create confusion if we don't go to a
> > discussion process first. We should consider which are the criteria
to
> > define which are the more important bugs to be fixed or features to
be
> > implemented for the next version (although, I recall that it was
> > decided that votes on an issue was the most important criterium). +1
> > For changind 1.1.3 to nightly in the meanwhile...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > 2005/11/21, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@gmail.com>:
> > > I also think we should get rid of the 1.1.3 version (change it
back to
> > > nightly.)  This is going to cause a lot of confusion.
> > >
> > > We need to have a group dicussion on how we might change JIRA to
give
> > > better information.  Perhaps a field for the "scheduled" version
which
> > > is independent of the version fixed field ...
> > >
> > > For now I say change 1.1.3 to nightly and create a 1.1.2 branch in
> > > order to minimize confusion.  Someone has already asked me offlist
> > > which version to report their bug against (they were using the
nightly
> > > build but now there is 1.1.2 and 1.1.3).
> > >
> > > sean
> > >
> > > On 11/21/05, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Well I disagree slightly with how this is being handled.  I
think we
> > > > should have created a 1.1.2 branch before getting rid of the
nightly
> > > > version.  And we probably should have taken an informal poll
before
> > > > doing that.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that we should have a roadmap before 1.1.2.  I agree
with
> > > > Manfred that we should release tomahawk along with the
implementation.
> > > >  That should be the policy until we have a compelling reason to
do
> > > > otherwise.  If anything there are more useful fixes in tomahawk
than
> > > > the implementation.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime, without a nightly version label in JIRA and
without a
> > > > 1.1.2 branch, basically every fix that goes into SVN will be
part of
> > > > the 1.1.2 release.  On the other hand, we don't want to be on
the
> > > > branch for too long either because we will have to merge down
and
> > > > people using the nightly won't be able to access the last minute
> > > > branch changes until that is done.
> > > >
> > > > At this point, the 1.1.2 JIRA changes have already been made so
I
> > > > guess we leave them alone and not add a nightly label until we
make
> > > > the branch.  I suggest we branch soon but not until we all agree
that
> > > > its time for a new release.
> > > >
> > > > sean
> > > >
> > > > On 11/21/05, Abrams, Howard A <Howard.Abrams@ca.com> wrote:
> > > > > I've done a quick and dirty pass through the open issues, and
made the
> > > > > following changes:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Renamed 'Nightly' to '1.1.2'
> > > > > * Added a few seemingly very important issues to 1.1.2
> > > > > * Left any open issues already marked for 1.1.2/nightly as-is,
> > > > > regardless of my opinion of them (in theory they should be
removed
> > > > > because non api/impl issues shouldn't hold up a release,
right?)
> > > > > * Created a new 1.1.3 version
> > > > > * Added remaining issues that looked reasonably important to
1.1.3.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the next step is for the community to take a look and:
> > > > > * Nominate any issues that should be added to 1.1.2 or 1.1.3
> > > > > * Nominate any issues that should be removed from 1.1.2 or
1.1.3
> > > > >
> > > > > Then I think we should vote on the 1.1.2 list, and if/when
approved,
> > > > > move forward with fixing the remaining issues and preparing
for a
> > > > > release.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts? Suggestions?
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Manfred Geiler [mailto:manfred.geiler@gmail.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 2:26 AM
> > > > > > To: MyFaces Development
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Plan for 1.1.2?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Howard,
> > > > > > You are now member of "myfaces-developers" group on Jira.
Can you
> > > > > > please check if this gives you enough rights?
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Manfred
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2005/11/21, Abrams, Howard A <Howard.Abrams@ca.com>:
> > > > > > > If you're certain that issues on the custom/extended
components have
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > chance of holding up a release (other than taking
resources away
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > fixing issue in the api/impl), then you're right, there
isn't a
> > > > > need.
> > > > > > > However, I think that without a clear plan the issue is
confused.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we can use the 'road map' feature of JIRA to pick
issues for
> > > > > > > each upcoming minor release. I'll volunteer to take a stab
at
> > > > > creating a
> > > > > > > 'road map' for 1.1.2, (if someone can give me any access
required).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Manfred Geiler [mailto:manfred.geiler@gmail.com]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:05 AM
> > > > > > > > To: MyFaces Development
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Plan for 1.1.2?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, there is nothing to argue against quicker release
cycles.
> > > > > EXCEPT
> > > > > > > > the fact that a new release (not a build!) does not
emerge alone,
> > > > > ie.
> > > > > > > > cannot be fully automated. There are things like release
candidate
> > > > > > > > voting, testing (!), release notes, homepage updates,
> > > > > announcements.
> > > > > > > > Which takes time.
> > > > > > > > Sean and Bill have spent much much time in releasing
so
far
> > > > > (thanks!)
> > > > > > > > and many have helped to make it as easy as possible.
But
of
> > > > > course:
> > > > > > > > Any additional help is welcome!
> > > > > > > > The more volunteer helpers and testers we have, the
faster we can
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > our cycles.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As Howard did mention, a release plan would be good.
Any
volunteer
> > > > > who
> > > > > > > > is willing to look over the open Jira issues and
classify them?
> > > > > > > > Any thoughts about future milestones?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -0.5 from my side for releasing the API/impl separately:
> > > > > > > > There is no need IMHO. API/Impl are the most important
parts. So,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > there really is a showstopper, this alone would
legitimate a new
> > > > > > > > release. Regardless of small bugs in one of the addons
or sub
> > > > > > > > projects.
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Manfred
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2005/11/20, Travis Reeder <treeder@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > +1 for the quicker release cycle.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 11/20/05, James Mitchell <james.l.mitchell@mac.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Not sure about the release plan, but +1
for a
quicker release
> > > > > > > cycle.
> > > > > > > > > > Let's not get caught up in the same slow
cycle that
has
> > > > > affected
> > > > > > > > > > Struts for so long.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > James Mitchell
> > > > > > > > > > 678.910.8017
> > > > > > > > > > Skpe: jmitchtx
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 19, 2005, at 11:19 PM, Abrams, Howard
A
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Is there a release plan for 1.1.2?
It seems there
are a
> > > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > > > > > number of issues on the trunk; some
of which may
not be
> > > > > marked
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > such in JIRA.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Also, now that we've gotten passed
the TCK, moved
to SVN,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > broken out the various sub projects,
I'd like to
revisit the
> > > > > > > > > > > subject of releasing the API/impl separately
from
the
> > > > > > > components.
> > > > > > > > > > > There are many of us who do not use
any of the sub
projects,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > seems silly to hold back a release
of the impl due
to a bug
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > random fancy component. Any +1's out
there?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > h.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 



Mime
View raw message