OK. But we need to make it painfully clear that anything can change between releases, with no migration path between releases.
Also, the work that is identified by MRM-153 + 211 + 212 are moot in the branch, as other, more fundamental solutions has been worked out for dealing with remote repositories, checksum policy, and maven 1 clients. My Opinions: Releasing Trunk is a mistake. Things trunk doesn't do (or does poorly)... * Supporting maven 1 clients. * Supporting large repositories. * Supporting non-http remote repositories. * Supporting network proxy with remote repositories. * Returning accurate results on search. * Supporting all artifact types. * Support artifact relocation. * Support artifact classifiers. * Supporting multiple remote repositories for proxying. * Support remote repository snapshot policy. * Supporting the indexing of legacy repositories. * Artifacts with missing parents. * Artifacts with missing dependencies. * Supporting Tomcat. Any release of trunk should be considered pre-1.0 (not even alpha-1) as it is so broken. Any release of trunk should be made painfully clear to ONLY support ... * Maven 2 default repositories. * Proxying to 1 remote repository with http only. * No network proxy support. * Under 3,000 artifacts supported. * Full and complete heirarchy of artifacts (parents and dependencies) must be present in repositories to work. - Joakim Wendy Smoak wrote: > On 4/10/07, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> -1 >> >> The branch changes enough things that it would be a collosal pain in the >> ass to migrate from whatever is on trunk to the code in branch. >> >> configuration format is changed, lucene index has changed, database has >> changed. >> each of which isn't even close to the structure that exists on trunk. >> >> please. >> be patient. >> we're aiming for a branch to trunk merge within 2 weeks. >> and a release shortly after that. > > People are already using it. They will have to convert (or start > over). The current situation is not fair to the users, and not fair > to the developers who under ASF guildelines [1] should not be > discussing unreleased software with non-developers. (By that logic we > shouldn't even have a user list yet.) > > A 1.0-alpha-1 now doesn't have to be widely distributed and promoted. > It will give us a comparison point for the new code, and something to > document changes against. > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what >
