Jason, I'm confused. You replied to the same message you already
replied to, not my subsequent message. I didn't even think we were
talking about 2.0.x up until this point because I'd missed that in
your original message.
Let me try and restate what I was saying.
You raised the issue as one of versioning. I don't think it's wise to
change the versions now based on the fact releases have already
occurred. That's nothing to do with the actual changes.
I think the right thing to use for anything other than 2.0.x is the
latest release of Wagon. It seems from your last mail you have no
objection there.
For 2.0.x, I think it entirely depends on what happens with the
current RC cycle. Let's get past that first. If we're taking a step
back from what's there now, I've no problem with pushing off the wagon
changes to 2.1.x now that that exists. The situation of making the
release available to users is completely different from when the
change was first made in June and I wouldn't propose adding it to
2.0.x if I were doing it today.
If we're pushing forward with the current RC as 2.0.10 then I would be
reluctant to roll the wagon changes back out again. But, we can cross
that bridge when we come to it.
If I've missed something let me know. I know you raised this concern
initially, but I thought we had moved on already and I'd rather not
keep reopening it.
Thanks,
Brett
On 25/08/2008, at 3:49 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 24-Aug-08, at 10:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of
development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to
worry more about the stability of a component that is already in
place for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see
the point in that either.
Only 2 things have cropped up in beta-3, and they've both been
fixed (WAGON-224, WAGON-225). There was one more that predated my
changes, also fixed in trunk and easily worked around in Maven
(WAGON-237).
Sure, it would probably have been better to rename 1.0-beta-2 as
1.0 and release Wagon beta-3 as 1.1-beta-1. Hindsight is great. But
plenty of time was left for discussion, enough people voted for the
release, and I stand by it. Re-releasing something old as 1.0 when
the others are out would just be even more confusing. I don't
really get what you are trying to achieve that you can't do already.
You don't seem to be listening. Look at what happened with what were
intended to be simple changes with 2.0.x and look at where we are
how many weeks later. With all our integration tests, RCs and best
efforts things just manage to slip though. No one's fault, that's
just the way it generally goes here.
The changes that have been made in Wagon have been run through the
same groove over and over again and we haven't gotten a huge number
of people testing the RCs. That's also human nature.
I also said if we followed the path where what were truly bug fixes
could be separate from the major refactorings that would be fine to.
I know that when Maven 2.0.x is released with Wagon beta-XX it will
be the first time it's heavily vetted and I would rather not have it
be a surprise. We also made the decision with respect to Maven after
we ventured down the RC path. So hindsight is great. I just think
it's the prudent thing to do given it affects almost everything in
Maven.
- Brett
On 25/08/2008, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that
have cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried
the new wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to
happen. I would just rather be safe then repentant.
I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix
what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case
that we have problems when we do this.
I personally don't think it's for "no good reason": I want to do
what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should
have just cut the release and moved on.
On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't
want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point
fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason.
Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying
to stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are
trying to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month
ago you were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent
on rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for
release again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out,
we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call things.
Cheers,
Brett
On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're
going with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a
beta and I don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1
release.
That is significant:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10335&fixfor=12544
If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I
could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be
happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2.
I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0-
beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x.
I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and
let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x.
On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug?
Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo
and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance
of changes. That got fixed in beta-4.
John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234
), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing?
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
be omnipotent for a while.
-- Jakob Burckhardt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good
people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
-- Paul Graham
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
