I've signed and published 2.2.0 on the mirrors, and updated the downloads page accordingly. You'll see it after the next site referesh. I left it marked as "beta" because I wasn't sure if our vote was final or not.
If we're ready to go GA, we should probably wait until at least tomorrow to make the user announcement - to give all the mirrors time to update. All that remains to be done is the formal announcement, and change the site to say GA instead of beta. Jeff Butler On 12/2/06, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+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 > 2.3 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 2.3is > > posted > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done > > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
