I'm hoping that people step forward with suggestions and we build a consensus
IMHO 3.5.0 should be absolute minimum content. Just the switch to resolver and *maybe* the bug fixes on the launcher scripts and .mvn folder handling. Aim would be to release 3.5.0 by mid-Jan 3.5.x is less of a rush, as I would hope for us to cut that say end of Feb and start a 6 week cadence (assuming I can get a KT on how to release core from JvZ) 3.6.x / 4.x.y really depends on what features we want to add 5.x.y will require at least my completion of my proposals and then some debate... before we actually start to lock down what we really want to do (remember my proposals are just *my* proposals... they have no weight other than one committer saying "I think this is what we should do"). I am writing my proposals because it is much easier to edit a draft (or write a counter-proposal) than to start from a blank sheet of paper. - Stephen On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 20:28, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks, > > what I'm missing is how people can provide there suggestions. > E.g. a wiki table where everybody add his own column with preferred > version? > Or anonymous to somebody (you as initiator? me as chairman?) so people > aren't driven by others choices. > Or any other way. > For the first 2 options you must specify a period to respond, I would > expect at least a week due to the time of year. > > Robert > > On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:11:12 +0100, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Robert, I posted the bug scrub to the dev list > > On 31 December 2016 at 19:19, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > I could do that. However, if that list results in a new discussion I'm not > in the position to make a final statement anymore. > > Robert > > On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 17:27:18 +0100, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ok so we will need to do a scrub. Can somebody propose a draft scrub? > > Basically, go through the commits we have, identify the JIRA issues > (creating new ones if necessary) and then produce a table with JIRA issue > and then proposed version from the set: 3.5.0, 3.5.x, 3.6.x, 4.x.y, 5.x.y > and WONTFIX > > We can then debate the table as a whole and decide the plan > > (Not sure if table should be on mailing list or a wiki page... but once we > decide the plan we should apply the plan in JIRA) > > On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 16:14, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: > > I think we won't avoid to pre-define a short list of issues that are > > controversial before working on code reset, to be sure we all agree, or > either > > we'll work too much on branches with associated votes (which won't work > given > > the amount of work to come), either there will be reverts because "this one > > requires branch work" > > > > Regards, > > > > Hervé > > > > Le jeudi 29 décembre 2016, 13:49:46 CET Robert Scholte a écrit : > > > thanks Stephen for picking this up. > > > > > > SHA-1: 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03 > > > * [maven-release-plugin] prepare for next development iteration > > > > > > Yes, this is the hash I would expect to revert to. > > > Based on the date I would expect that maven-its should be reset to > > > > > > SHA-1: 94bd771c88cc96014ca0ddaa07ac6f778b3c7501 > > > * [MNG-5840] Argh! tests added but not added to suite > > > > > > I like the idea of pushing to 3.5.0 to indicate there was something with > > > 3.4.x > > > > > > My worries are more about: how to manage which issues should be cherry > > > picked and who decides that list. Otherwise we might end up in the same > > > situation. E.g. do we have to do a vote on the branch (which might cover > > > multiple issues but which are related to the same topic) to decide if it > > > can be merged with the master? > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > -- > Sent from my phone > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Sent from my phone
