Wendy Smoak wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We can call it whatever version. At this point I don't think it much
matters.
I'd like to see the current trunk moved to a code-named branch, so
that we can make incremental improvements in 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc.
In the current arrangement, we're stuck adding new features to what
should be patch releases of 2.0.x. Import scope is one example.
Don's changes for parallel artifact download are another thing I'd
like to see go in, but that just feel too big for a 2.0.x version.
It's just a number, after all, but there are conventions around what
should change in a major/minor/patch release, and we're breaking with
them.
This is exactly why I'd like to put the current trunk code on the path
of being released as 3.0. We have tons of things that could reasonably
be improved in 2.0.x, but aren't really appropriate in such a minor
release as 2.0.11. We could move toward larger feature introductions
like import scope in a more appropriate manner if we were to put those
things into a 2.1.x release. We might be able to put a limit on the
lifespan of 2.0.x at the same time, and only release regression fixes to
that branch, and start working on intermediary efforts to improve Maven
from its 2.0.x baseline without having to accommodate/wait for a
full-blown rewrite of all these major subsystems.
-john
--
John Casey
Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
