ode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "victor panizza" <victor.pani...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next Release
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:29:02 GMT
+1.

Victor Panizza

On Dec 5, 2007 10:18 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tvanlessen@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1. Cheers Tammo
>
> 2007/12/5, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com>:
> > Yeah, I just arrived at the same conclusion.  I vote for 1.1.1 as well.
> >
> >
> > On 12/5/07, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually I was reviewing the list of changes and there's nothing
> really
> > > major. A long list of small fixes, performance and usability
> improvements
> > > but nothing earth-shattering. It still provides a lot of value for
> users
> > > are
> > > there are a few annoying things in there but given that we're holding
> up
> > > the
> > > major features for a little more, what about calling it a 1.1.1instead of
> > > 1.2? I think it captures the minor nature of the release a bit better
> and
> > > leaves 1.2 for the bells and whistles.
> > >
> > > Matthieu
> > >
> > > On Dec 5, 2007 8:14 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tvanlessen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Matthieu Riou wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 5, 2007 7:09 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tvanlessen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I see, ok. Then I got it wrong in your last mail. Sorry. E4X
> assigns
> > > > and
> > > > >> extension activities are not (yet) back ported to the 1.1 branch.
> It
> > > > >> would be okay for me to put into the next release train but I
> think
> > > > it's
> > > > >> not that hard to port it back to 1.2. What do you guys think?
> > > > >> (especially regarding the change in the OAssign and some other
> > > OClasses
> > > > >> - users would need to compile their processes again)
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, I'd love to get these features out ASAP but they also break
> > > > backward
> > > > > compatibility of the compiled process and for a lot of people with
> > > > running
> > > > > instances that's a problem. I think we should have a fairly
> > > > > conservative 1.2and then introduce all these changes in
> > > > > 2.0 once we'll have a way to support compiled processes migration.
> > > > Hopefully
> > > > > that should come quickly, I thinks this release has already been
> far
> > > too
> > > > > long to come. I don't feel like delaying much more 1.2 as we have
> a
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > fixes in the 1.1 branch that are pretty useful. Sounds good?
> > > > Yep, sounds good.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >  Tammo
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Tammo van Lessen - tvanlessen@gmail.com - http://www.taval.de
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message