Andy, December has not changed, but nowhere have I read anything that suggests that a release by then is even targeted. It is difficult to plan anything this way. That is where I like Rob's way of thinking about it. A release cycle wouldn't even have to be rigorous, but if it was tentative, we know at least around when a release would likely happen. If it is late because of the volunteer nature of the activity, so be it, but that is better than nothing at all.
"I have only just managed to persuade you et al that JENA-289 is not "critical". That didn't help." Not sure why this is relevant for a service release. You can easily have a service release without all major or critical defects fixed. We often have to push defects out to the next cycle. Simon From: Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 10/04/2012 03:57 PM Subject: Re: 2.7.4 release? On 04/10/12 20:38, Simon Helsen wrote: > Andy, > > I saw the message. I should have followed up on it. > > "Are you going to test pre-release if we start a release process? We > have just done a public testing cycle on SDB and it was worked well." > > yes. We are already testing recent 2.7.4 snapshots and if there is > something like a pre-release, I'd kick of another test cycle for sure. The > only thing I am saying is that we cannot get to the same level of depth > with an unofficial release because I am limited in my ability to > propagate. That is not something in my power to change. Nor mime. It's an IBM choice - nothing to do with the project. > "An open source community is about working together for mutual benefit." > > Never contested that > > 'Jena 2.7.3 was Aug 07. Less than 2 months." > > 2 months is pretty long for us and the previous minor releases were much > faster in succession. Also, time is not that important, but what is in it. > The number of TDB fixes is very large and we know for a fact that 2.7.3 is > unusable for us > I guess my e-mail was more to bring the debate around the release to the > forefront since we have deadlines and an adoption for 2.7.4 is important > for us. From previous communication, it was just not clear what the plan > was. Your email http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jena-dev/201209.mbox/%3COF89DD17EE.43C26C25-ON85257A77.006198F3-85257A77.00635672%40ca.ibm.com%3E says December. What's changed? I have only just managed to persuade you et al that JENA-289 is not "critical". That didn't help. Andy > > thanks > > Simon
