OK I changed 1.1.3 back to nightly for now. I also "archived" the 1.1.2 release. This way users can't report issues against this version but the issues that Howard assigned to 1.1.2 have been preserved.
sean On 11/21/05, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do also think that this can create confusion if we don't go to a > discussion process first. We should consider which are the criteria to > define which are the more important bugs to be fixed or features to be > implemented for the next version (although, I recall that it was > decided that votes on an issue was the most important criterium). +1 > For changind 1.1.3 to nightly in the meanwhile... > > Regards, > > Bruno > > 2005/11/21, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I also think we should get rid of the 1.1.3 version (change it back to > > nightly.) This is going to cause a lot of confusion. > > > > We need to have a group dicussion on how we might change JIRA to give > > better information. Perhaps a field for the "scheduled" version which > > is independent of the version fixed field ... > > > > For now I say change 1.1.3 to nightly and create a 1.1.2 branch in > > order to minimize confusion. Someone has already asked me offlist > > which version to report their bug against (they were using the nightly > > build but now there is 1.1.2 and 1.1.3). > > > > sean > > > > On 11/21/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well I disagree slightly with how this is being handled. I think we > > > should have created a 1.1.2 branch before getting rid of the nightly > > > version. And we probably should have taken an informal poll before > > > doing that. > > > > > > I agree that we should have a roadmap before 1.1.2. I agree with > > > Manfred that we should release tomahawk along with the implementation. > > > That should be the policy until we have a compelling reason to do > > > otherwise. If anything there are more useful fixes in tomahawk than > > > the implementation. > > > > > > In the meantime, without a nightly version label in JIRA and without a > > > 1.1.2 branch, basically every fix that goes into SVN will be part of > > > the 1.1.2 release. On the other hand, we don't want to be on the > > > branch for too long either because we will have to merge down and > > > people using the nightly won't be able to access the last minute > > > branch changes until that is done. > > > > > > At this point, the 1.1.2 JIRA changes have already been made so I > > > guess we leave them alone and not add a nightly label until we make > > > the branch. I suggest we branch soon but not until we all agree that > > > its time for a new release. > > > > > > sean > > > > > > On 11/21/05, Abrams, Howard A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've done a quick and dirty pass through the open issues, and made the > > > > following changes: > > > > > > > > * Renamed 'Nightly' to '1.1.2' > > > > * Added a few seemingly very important issues to 1.1.2 > > > > * Left any open issues already marked for 1.1.2/nightly as-is, > > > > regardless of my opinion of them (in theory they should be removed > > > > because non api/impl issues shouldn't hold up a release, right?) > > > > * Created a new 1.1.3 version > > > > * Added remaining issues that looked reasonably important to 1.1.3. > > > > > > > > I think the next step is for the community to take a look and: > > > > * Nominate any issues that should be added to 1.1.2 or 1.1.3 > > > > * Nominate any issues that should be removed from 1.1.2 or 1.1.3 > > > > > > > > Then I think we should vote on the 1.1.2 list, and if/when approved, > > > > move forward with fixing the remaining issues and preparing for a > > > > release. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? Suggestions? > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Manfred Geiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 2:26 AM > > > > > To: MyFaces Development > > > > > Subject: Re: Plan for 1.1.2? > > > > > > > > > > Howard, > > > > > You are now member of "myfaces-developers" group on Jira. Can you > > > > > please check if this gives you enough rights? > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Manfred > > > > > > > > > > 2005/11/21, Abrams, Howard A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > If you're certain that issues on the custom/extended components have > > > > no > > > > > > chance of holding up a release (other than taking resources away > > > > from > > > > > > fixing issue in the api/impl), then you're right, there isn't a > > > > need. > > > > > > However, I think that without a clear plan the issue is confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can use the 'road map' feature of JIRA to pick issues for > > > > > > each upcoming minor release. I'll volunteer to take a stab at > > > > creating a > > > > > > 'road map' for 1.1.2, (if someone can give me any access required). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Manfred Geiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:05 AM > > > > > > > To: MyFaces Development > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Plan for 1.1.2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, there is nothing to argue against quicker release cycles. > > > > EXCEPT > > > > > > > the fact that a new release (not a build!) does not emerge alone, > > > > ie. > > > > > > > cannot be fully automated. There are things like release candidate > > > > > > > voting, testing (!), release notes, homepage updates, > > > > announcements. > > > > > > > Which takes time. > > > > > > > Sean and Bill have spent much much time in releasing so far > > > > (thanks!) > > > > > > > and many have helped to make it as easy as possible. But of > > > > course: > > > > > > > Any additional help is welcome! > > > > > > > The more volunteer helpers and testers we have, the faster we can > > > > have > > > > > > > our cycles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As Howard did mention, a release plan would be good. Any volunteer > > > > who > > > > > > > is willing to look over the open Jira issues and classify them? > > > > > > > Any thoughts about future milestones? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -0.5 from my side for releasing the API/impl separately: > > > > > > > There is no need IMHO. API/Impl are the most important parts. So, > > > > if > > > > > > > there really is a showstopper, this alone would legitimate a new > > > > > > > release. Regardless of small bugs in one of the addons or sub > > > > > > > projects. > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Manfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2005/11/20, Travis Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > +1 for the quicker release cycle. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Travis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/20/05, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Not sure about the release plan, but +1 for a quicker release > > > > > > cycle. > > > > > > > > > Let's not get caught up in the same slow cycle that has > > > > affected > > > > > > > > > Struts for so long. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > James Mitchell > > > > > > > > > 678.910.8017 > > > > > > > > > Skpe: jmitchtx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 19, 2005, at 11:19 PM, Abrams, Howard A wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a release plan for 1.1.2? It seems there are a > > > > > > significant > > > > > > > > > > number of issues on the trunk; some of which may not be > > > > marked > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > such in JIRA. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, now that we've gotten passed the TCK, moved to SVN, > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > broken out the various sub projects, I'd like to revisit the > > > > > > > > > > subject of releasing the API/impl separately from the > > > > > > components. > > > > > > > > > > There are many of us who do not use any of the sub projects, > > > > so > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > seems silly to hold back a release of the impl due to a bug > > > > in > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > random fancy component. Any +1's out there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > h. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
