Brett Porter wrote:

On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:

why 1.1.x?

in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the
branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.

or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of development?

I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in
1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need for the first
2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the
2.0release and not only maintenance.

With the roadmap discussion recently, I thought it was going to be an
incremental move towards 2.0 on trunk - 1.2 will have some parts and
refactorings, 1.3, 1.4 and so on. I'm not sure why there would need to
be two streams of development? I think there's a real danger of getting
lost in the 2.0 trap (c.f. Maven 1.0, Maven 2.0 and Maven 2.1 :)

We haven't pegged any version numbers to the tasks extracted from the roadmap discussion. I think we should consider what architecture rework we intend to do (and impact), and if it merits keeping 2 streams (or not).

I'm actually keen to do a couple of small things myself and get a
release out:
- a few small bug fixes, like the lost change sets for some builds
- better error handling
- switch to a Jetty runtime without the plexus appserver so we can use
jetty 6
- add a call to svn info --xml to check whether to do an svn update to
speed up working copy updates

I agree on getting something out frequently. Having said that if there is a consensus on 2 streams then I think we need to keep the momentum up on both to get releases/milestones out there.

Just stuff I see from running vmbuild and the maven zone.

I think that and a couple of other refactorings that are being discussed
on here would make a good 1.2 in the next couple of months. WDYT?

- Brett

Brett Porter


Reply via email to