Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-poi-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-poi-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BCDB7C1A0 for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 21:29:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 69235 invoked by uid 500); 22 Sep 2013 21:29:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-poi-dev-archive@poi.apache.org Received: (qmail 68951 invoked by uid 500); 22 Sep 2013 21:29:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@poi.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "POI Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@poi.apache.org Received: (qmail 68943 invoked by uid 99); 22 Sep 2013 21:29:06 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 21:29:06 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [212.13.204.73] (HELO urchin.earth.li) (212.13.204.73) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 21:29:01 +0000 Received: from nick (helo=localhost) by urchin.earth.li with local-esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VNrCp-0006Cf-9d for dev@poi.apache.org; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:28:39 +0100 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:28:39 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Burch X-X-Sender: nick@urchin.earth.li To: POI Developers List Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache POI 3.10 Beta 2 released In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1379602209.87112.YahooMailNeo@web160705.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Dominik Stadler wrote: > what are the next steps on POI? Do we stabilize a bit more and release > 3.10 before doing more risky stuff? Or do some more bugfixes before > starting the 3.10 release process again? Given we've had 2 betas so far, it would probably confuse users if we started doing major and/or breaking changes before 3.10 final is out. Afterwards we're fine to, compatibility rules withstanding! Hopefully that won't be that long, if you want to make some big changes it's not too long to hold off... What we do have is quite a lot of user contributed patches/fixes that haven't been applied. If we're not very good at reviewing/applying them, then it has two bad effects. Firstly, we're less likely to get more contributions in future if we're not seen to appreciate them. Secondly, people who have their patches ignored tend not to stick about, so we loose out on potential new committers going forward. Neither good! Everyone here is a volunteer, so no-one can demand anyone else do anything! But, if I did have more spare time than I currently seem to, I'd personally be focusing on trying to review + apply as many recent user contributed fixes/enhancements as possible. Either way, we probably want to set a rough deadline on the next release. A few days before, we can do a straw poll on beta 3 vs final. If Tim decides it's leaning towards another beta, then he can pretty much roll it then. If final is the consensus, then probably best allow a week or so extra for last minute fixes / tweaks, then roll 3.10 final! In the mean time, if anyone wants to play with some major changes, best bet is to take a branch in SVN to work on, then merge it back to trunk once 3.10 is out. Nick --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org