Lukas Theussl wrote: > > > Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: >> the rationale behind not going directly to 3.0 was that site plugin is >> hard to test, particularly now that it is both compatible with Maven 2 >> and Maven 3, which is something really new and probably tested by only a >> few of us > > I don't quite agree with this rationale. Ease of testing is not a > criterion for version naming IMO. The main criterion is how many *known* > bugs and missing features there are left. So what are the open issues > that we are aware about? If there are none or only a few, then let's > call it final. If the people who are working on the release feel that > the stuff is stable (which I do) then why not release it as such? > > >> sure, 3.0-beta-4 should at least be 3.0-RC-1, but perhaps not 3.0 >> immediately: I'm pretty sure we'll find some important problems when a >> lot of people try it seriously > > The most efficient way to get people to test something, is to release it! > :) > > >> There are real important factors to test, which makes a lot of >> combinations: - Maven version: 2.2.x, 3.x >> - OS >> - phases: site, site-deploy, site:stage-deploy (run? jar?) > > should all be covered by our ITs: > > https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-site-plugin-2.x/ > https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-site-plugin-3.x/ > https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-site-plugin-3.x-m2/ > > I am aware that there are some important differences though, (some ITs > are skipped with m3, or executed with different parameters), which would > be important to review and document I guess. > >> - deploy protocol: scp, webdav > > not really a site-plugin concern, rather wagon > >> - report plugins used: I don't know how to describe without being a >> mess... > > We (devs) cannot test everything, even the more important it is to get > user feedback. > >> But at least, with maven-site-plugin 2.3 being out and almost equivalent >> (particularly when it comes to Doxia and Doxia Site Tools), we have a >> clear line to check if a problem with 3.0 is a regression from 2.3 or not > > so this would rather be an argument in favour of 3.0...? > >> Then I'd better be for 3.0-RC-1 for the moment. > > I will support whatever the release manager decides, but I would prefer > 3.0-final with a number of bug fix releases following, rather than an > open interval of [RC-1, RC-2,...). More people will test the final > release and there will be more pressure on us to push for bug-fix > versions (which is good! :) ).
>From user's perspective: +1 Especially since this is the first version that can be used by M3 and M2. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
