Hi Emm, On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 5/26/10 8:33 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > >> Hi Emmanuel, >> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I did my best to cleanup DIR, shared and a bit of API tonite, there are >>> still some of the associated issue to discuss about. >>> >>> Regarding DIRSERVER, we have 140 opened issues on 2.0.0-RC1, for 33 >>> fixed. >>> We also have 2 fixed issues for 1.5.8. We also have 71 opened issues >>> tagged >>> for 2.0.0. >>> >>> What about removing the 1.5.8 version, merge all the 2.0.0 issues into >>> 2.0.0-RC1, and move the poms version to 2.0.0-RC1? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Not that I want to push the issue but did we agree to using RCs. I did not >> get a response to the emails suggesting we just use major.minor.micro >> version numbers. If you guys agree to this basic approach then we should >> just skip 1.5.8 and push all issues to 2.0.0. >> >> > I think that until we reach a point where we have a stable 2.0, we should > go for 2.0.0-RC1. Then we can abandon this RC stuff. > > Yeah I think you have a good point - it's been such a long time and this RC period will help us safely get out of the rut of waiting so long before another major release. > The reason is that we have a hell lot of things to do in order to be > production ready for 2.0, including docs and tests (I mean, production > tests). We are far from having all those guys finished... Also having a > 2.0.0-RC1 will help us to send a message that ADS-2.0-RC1 is finally out > there, ready to be tested, and we need feedback. If we release a 2.0 (no > RC1) then we might have negative feedback like "it's crap, don't use it !", > something we don't want to have for a final version. It *will* take time > before we stabilize : remember 1.0-RCs ? > > +1 - you have very good points that make total sense - I change my mind thanks to these. > >> >> >>> Same question for shared, which is currently on 0.9.19, with a 1.0.0-RC1 >>> pending : should we get rid of 0.9.20 ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Same logic here as above. Do away with 0.9.20 and push all issues to >> 1.0.0. >> BTW this means locking down our API in shared which might make life >> harder >> for us since both the server and studio depend on this. Just means we >> need >> to take care of deprecations etc. >> >> > Shared is a bit different beast here. I was even thinking that we should > merge shared and the ldap api, as they are the two legs the client and the > server will stand. We can release a 0.9.20 and postpone 1.0.0. > > OK 0.9.20 is safer or at least less non-committal. Regards, -- Alex Karasulu My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/ Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org To set up a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/AlexKarasulu
