On Dec 5, 2007 7:09 AM, Tammo van Lessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see, ok. Then I got it wrong in your last mail. Sorry. E4X assigns and > extension activities are not (yet) back ported to the 1.1 branch. It > would be okay for me to put into the next release train but I think it's > not that hard to port it back to 1.2. What do you guys think? > (especially regarding the change in the OAssign and some other OClasses > - users would need to compile their processes again) >
Yeah, I'd love to get these features out ASAP but they also break backward compatibility of the compiled process and for a lot of people with running instances that's a problem. I think we should have a fairly conservative 1.2and then introduce all these changes in 2.0 once we'll have a way to support compiled processes migration. Hopefully that should come quickly, I thinks this release has already been far too long to come. I don't feel like delaying much more 1.2 as we have a lot of fixes in the 1.1 branch that are pretty useful. Sounds good? Matthieu > > Cheers, > Tammo > > Matthieu Riou wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2007 1:43 AM, Tammo van Lessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm now a bit confused... are we going to release the current trunk or > >> the current 1.1-branch? > >> > > > > The current 1.1 which includes a few additional features and a lot of > bug > > fixes. The trunk is still not so stable and more importantly still > breaks > > backward compatibility (but I think Maciej is working on that). > > > > Cheers, > > Matthieu > > > > > >> Tammo > >> > >> On Dec 5, 2007 2:10 AM, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]/< > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > >> wrote: > >>> It's looking good, the tests are all passing and we don't have any > >> pending > >>> issue left. So I'm going to cut the first RC tomorrow (Wednesday). As > >> far as > >>> branches / tags are concerned, I think I'm going to handle it this way > >>> (given we're already releasing from a branch): > >>> > >>> * copy the 1.1 branch to a 1.2 > >>> * bump up the release number to 1.2RC1 > >>> * make the release using the 1.2RC1 code > >>> > >>> Unless there are objections, I don't think it's really necessary to > tag > >> RCs, > >>> it's easy enough with SVN to tag from the new 1.2 branch once we have > a > >>> release we like. > >>> > >>> Sounds good? > >>> > >>> Matthieu > >>> > >>> > >>> On Dec 3, 2007 11:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Tammo van Lessen wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Matthieu Riou wrote: > >>>>>> I think our little deadline has passed. Everybody's ready for a > >>>>>> first RC? > >>>>> Yep. > >>>> Ditto. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Alan > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Tammo van Lessen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.taval.de > >> > > > >
