+1 On 12/2/06, Brandon Goodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is this an official vote? If so... +1 On 12/2/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sold. +1 > > > On 12/2/06, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think it's a good idea too. > > > > I could sign the 2.2.0 zip and publish it to the mirrors. I want to add > the 2.2 PDF docs to it first though. Then everything for the last DAO > release (including docs) would be in one place. > > > > Sound like a plan? > > Jeff > > > > > > > > On 12/2/06, Brandon Goodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > I think that would be good (of course) :D. > > > > > > > > > Brandon > > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 2.2 > but 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 2.3to > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
