That sounds fine to me. John Casey wrote: > I've included this as M2 to give us a clean base in M1: > > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Maven+2.1.0+Release+Plan > > Let me know what you think. > > > > Dennis Lundberg wrote: >> John Casey wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> So, it seems that we're all in agreement about the rough outline for >>> 2.1.x and beyond. I've renamed the current RC branch to be 2.1.0-M1-RC >>> to make this the first milestone toward some as-yet-undetermined feature >>> list for 2.1.0. >>> >>> So, let's talk about that feature list. From earlier comments, I've >>> gathered that the following may be good targets to include for 2.1.0: >>> >>> - Dan's reactor changes >>> - Parallel downloads >>> - PGP stuff >>> - MNG-624 and related issues/feature enhancements (parent versioning, >>> right?) >>> >>> What I don't know is what state of maturity each of these is in, and on >>> what timeline they can be stabilized. Do the relevant developers have >>> enough time to finish implementing, testing, and documenting each >>> feature, so we could get a 2.1.0 GA out in, say 6 weeks or so? Maybe a >>> better approach would be to try for a new milestone release that >>> contains the final result of each new feature (with latent parts of the >>> rest, as we work on them), such that the 2.1.0 GA will contain all the >>> new features in their complete forms, with any regressions identified >>> fixed and incorporated? >>> >>> I haven't found the pertinent Confluence pages describing the above >>> features yet...maybe they don't exist or maybe I haven't looked hard >>> enough yet, but we'll need to collect the list somewhere that we can >>> make it public going forward, and then publish that release plan URL on >>> the Maven site. >>> >>> Are there other things that we can fit into this sort of timeframe? Is >>> this too much? It's my strong preference that we try to cap this release >>> cycle at two months, so I guess this means taking the list of "nearly >>> there" features and determining whether we'll have the time to stabilize >>> them for inclusion, given our current availability. >> >> With a timeframe of 2 months I would like to see Doxia beta-1 included >> in the core. This is tracked in JIRA as >> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3602 >> >> In the discussions surrounding that issue it was determined there would >> not be enough exposure of Doxia beta-1 until the next release (at that >> time). But with the new timeframe for the 2.1 release we should be able >> to get good testing of Doxia beta-1. >> >>> Of course, once we settle the 2.1.0 release plan, we can start talking >>> about what we're going to do for 2.2, 2.3, etc. As long as we keep >>> things rolling, there's no reason anyone needs to feel overly rushed >>> about getting a particular feature in a particular release...it should >>> NOT be your only chance. :-) >>> >>> What does anyone else think? >>> >>> -john >>> >> >> >
-- Dennis Lundberg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
