Fair enough, I misunderstood. :)
Stephen Connolly wrote:
afaik, I did not vote for any option (just a time bounded vote) ;-)
Sent from my iPod
On 3 Sep 2008, at 19:22, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The result was:
#1: 6 binding: Mark H., Jason, Brett, Wendy, Dan F., Dan K.
2 non-binding: Ralph, Raphael
#2: 2 binding: Brian, Dennis
2 non-binding: Mauro, Stephen
If you're following the other thread ("Maven 2.1.0 GA Plan") you'll
see that I've started to formalize the suggestions I made for features
to be included in 2.1.0 in Confluence. This is by no means set in
stone; in fact, for two of the features, we're still waiting on design
documentation before I'm comfortable committing to them.
I'd like to know if anyone would like to put a different issue on the
plan, and/or maybe talk about bumping one or more of these features to
2.2...in short, I was hoping to solicit some discussion about what
we're going to be building for 2.1.0.
Thanks,
-john
John Casey wrote:
Okay,
Let's put it to a vote. We have two options:
1. Release the current release candidate as milestone 1 of the 2.1.0
codeline. The version for this release would be 2.1.0-M1.
The advantage of this approach is that it keeps is (relatively)
focused on only three simultaneous codebases, not four. It provides a
stable foundation for building out a small set of new features for a
final GA release of 2.1.0. This release will have no new features,
and its only goal is backward compatibility with the maximum
stability possible. To me, this isn't enough to distinguish it from
2.0.x. However, the implementation details are such that it deserves
to be separate.
The disadvantage is that a -M1 release may not attract as many users,
and the performance/stability gains may not be compelling enough to
overcome the psychological barrier of moving from 2.0.9 to 2.1.0-M1.
2. Release the current release candidate as 2.1.0 GA.
The advantage here is that the work we've put into stabilizing this
RC is probably more worth of a GA release, and by calling it 2.1.0 we
can tell our users how solid we think it is. Additionally, calling
this 2.1.0 means that the only thing we could do for 2.1.1, 2.1.2,
etc. would be to fix any regressions that cropped up without adding
risk from new features.
The major disadvantage is that it will mean that some of us are
adding new features to 2.2.0 (parent-versioning, reactor changes,
etc.) while others are trying to push out regression fixes on 2.0.x
and 2.1.x, while still others are introducing large-scale changes on
the 3.0.x branch. I'm personally not sure we can drive four parallel
codelines to release in a timely manner.
So, let's vote. Just indicate whether you support #1 or #2.
My vote is for #1.
Thanks,
-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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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]
