I forgot we had this great Jenkins instance with lots of OSes and configuration combinations, and improved ITs to cover a lot of cases (more than +50% over 3.0-beta-3)
Then I'm now confident that we can release a good quality even without a lot of users having done tests themselves. +1 for 3.0 final: it won't be over-estimated! Regards, Hervé Le jeudi 7 juillet 2011, Lukas Theussl a écrit : > 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! :) ). > > -Lukas > > > Such a discussion happened a lot of time in the past: 3.0 and 3.0-RC-1 > > are good choices, but not 3.0-beta-4 > > The release manager can choose and I'll be with him. > > But IMHO we need to ask for people to tell what conditions they tested. > > > > Regards, > > > > Hervé > > > > Le mercredi 6 juillet 2011, Olivier Lamy a écrit : > >> No objections from me. > >> beta cycle has started long time ago. > >> > >> 2011/7/6 Lukas Theussl<ltheu...@apache.org>: > >>> Any objections to making this 3.0-final? AFAICT the plugin is > >>> functionally (almost) equivalent to the 2.x trunk version (only > >>> exception is MSITE-484?), so why keep the beta? > >>> > >>> -Lukas > >>> > >>> Dennis Lundberg wrote: > >>>> Hi > >>>> > >>>> What's the status on this? I know Hervé worked on extracting a shared > >>>> component (maven-reporting-exec) for the Maven 3 specific parts of the > >>>> plugin. Did you finish with that? > >>>> > >>>> I would like to push for a release of Site Plugin 3 shortly. The only > >>>> issue left according to JIRA is this one: > >>>> > >>>> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSITE-560 > >>>> > >>>> There are a lot stuff fixed already, and we need to get this out so > >>>> that Maven 3 users can benefit from them. Do we want/need to add > >>>> anything more before the release? > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
