Yeah, we can always rename the road map - I see this as a non-issue.
I also like that idea that objectstyle.cayenne.1.2 == apache.cayenne.
2.0. So yes, it looks like the next real release after 1.2 will be
3.0 ... and this will happen for technical (or rather organizational)
reasons, not political, which is good IMO ;-)
Andrus
On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:
Well, we could rename the roadmap to 2.1 ...
I was actually thinking last week there is enough new stuff in 1.2
that
it probably really should be a 2.0 release -- not only for technical
reasons, but also marketing/political. 1.x makes Cayenne sound a lot
less mature than it really is. Especially with Hibernate at 3.x. And
then we are talking about EJB 3 support. Maybe 2.0 should be the
initial Apache release and 3.0 the next roadmap or something?
I think I'd want to keep the bug-fixes for the objectstyle packages on
sourceforge. We can always apply those fixes to both sides so they
are
on the Apache packages, too.
Thanks,
/dev/mrg
-----Original Message-----
From: Cris Daniluk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 10:51 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Does it make sense to move 1.2 branch to Apache?
I'm with Cris on this. +1 for migrating all history into apache
SVN.
+1 for a "repackaging" release of cayenne with a minimal amount of
code changes. I think doing this right after the 1.2 release
makes a
great deal of sense. I'd recommend calling it 2.0 rather than
"apache
1.2" though since it's no longer backwards compatible.
We have a 2.0 roadmap, so it might be confusing. Hmm... we could
always
start the versioning over at Apache Cayenne 1.0, but that might be
even
more
confusing! Agree on not calling it "1.2 apache" though.
Cris
