I feel like we don't really need to fix these methods as they are supposed to be helper methods anyway. If the modello release is out before we're ready to cut the RC, then we can pick it up. Otherwise, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Anyone else feel strongly on this issue?
-----Original Message----- From: Dennis Lundberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:57 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: Preparing for 2.0.10 RC1 Brian, I was planning to upgrade the dependency on Modello in the core, because of a binary incompatibility [1] [2]. I was waiting for the build to fail in CI before I fixed it, but it doesn't seem to have failed yet. The change I was going to make would fix the Modello issue that you documented in the root pom.xml in [3]. I have tweaked Modello so that 1.0-alpha-19-SNAPSHOT now includes the missing helper methods, even though they should be private. I'll get stared on getting that version of Modello released. On a side note, we should make it possible to tell Modello to make these helper methods private before we start pushing out 2.1 releases. [1] https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=674674 [2] https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=674666 [3] https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=675380 Brian E. Fox wrote: > It looks like we've got a good set of issues fixed for 2.0.10 and things > are starting to stabilize. We'll start publishing 2.0.10 RC's as early > as today. I think we worked out a good process with the 2.0.9 release > and we should continue in that direction. The basic principles are: > > > > 1) we will stop to fix any regressions between 2.0.9 and 2.0.10 > > 2) Nothing else should be included once we start this process > > > > The initial RCs will be posted to the dev list, but naturally everyone > is welcome to try them. After we get comfortable with the stability of > the RCs here, I'll again involve the user list for broader testing of > the system. This is where we found the majority of the serious issues > last time. > > > > The issues chosen for 2.0.10 were primarily regressions identified over > earlier versions and the next highest voted issues that could be solved > without risking further destabilization and regressions. > > > > Because we expect to have several iterations, the RCs will be tagged as > RCs to avoid us having to rewind all the versions back many times. Once > the final RC has stabilized, we will redo the release a final time so > that the version is correct. This build will be the one voted on and > hopefully ultimately released. > > > > Thanks, > > Brian > > -- Dennis Lundberg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
