That's a great point. I've had similar discussions. How about this: Let's do the vote for 2.2. GA right now. Assuming it passes (I don't see why not considering how long it's been out), we update 2.1.7 to 2.2 on the website by Monday.
Then, next Friday (7 days) we start the vote for 2.3 GA and give it 7 more days to settle. Within two weeks we'll have a 2.2 and a 2.3 GA. I agree that we should probably GA 2.2 because people are already using it, but also because it's the last DAO release...that way we have a GA'd final DAO. Sound good? Clinton On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm fine with pushing 2.3. But, I had a conversation on the list with someone who feared upgrading to 2.2 because it wasn't GA. This was, apparently, a company policy. They need a feature that is available in 2.2but will not upgrade because it is not GA. If we do not make 2.2 GA then their company policy will continue to hold them up. I guess I don't see a reason why we wouldn't make it GA. It has been available for some time with fewer bugs than 2.1.7. If I were to blow off any release I'd blow off 2.1.7 because it conatins more bugs than 2.2. Brandon On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > My vote is to leave it the way it is. My conservative, pragmatic and > adventurous sides are all satisfied by having a single GA release as well as > the latest "Beta" release available for download. 2.2 is available in > the past releases if people want it. > > Cheers, > Clinton > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this one: > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html > > > > A great example of selective memory on my part :) > > > > Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to. But maybe we > > should let the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days. If it looks like it > > will fly, then we could do the 2.3 GA vote a little sooner. The major > > thing in 2.3 was prepared statement caching and I know there's already > > been some public testing of it. Most of the fixes I did were for esoteric > > issues. I think 2.3 is pretty solid. > > > > Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the mirrors? That > > wouldn't take much effort now that I know how to sign releases (it was a > > strange trip into command line hacker heaven). > > > > Jeff Butler > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was: > > > > > > "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release makes it to > > > GA. The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible. We could vote for GA on > > > 2.2. right now actually. " > > > > > > So a little closer to what Brandon is suggesting. However, I'm more > > > interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting 2.3 to > > > GA. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Clinton > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > We discussed this some weeks ago. IIRC, Clinton wanted to do a > > > > new release rather than voting for GA on 2.2. > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been > > > > > available for some time and contains several bug fixes over > > > > > 2.1.7. I would also say that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The other > > > > > thought is that there is no guarantee that 2.3 will be GA > > > > > quality after we get it out there for 2 weeks, however unlikely that may be. > > > > > Thanks for getting this all together! > > > > > > > > > > B > > > > > > > > > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything signed > > > > > > and checksummed. Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the > > > > > > .../dist directories, so I'm stuck right now. I've sent a note to infra@ > > > > > > and as soon as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able > > > > > > to publish the release. > > > > > > > > > > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the > > > > > > Apache mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release > > > > > > policy according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks > > > > > > ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > My release plan looks like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors. 2.3 will > > > > > > superceed 2.2, so no need to post it > > > > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release > > > > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is posted > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
