The drawbacks of beta are:
- We're not going to get an announcement out of anyone (InfoQ, TSS)
until it's a major version. Don't think we can afford to be that quiet.
- betas are "off limits" for a lot of people, so they'll just keep
using 3.0 final. But trunk is generally a much improved version of
3.0 (i.e. more solid).
David
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Manu George wrote:
I see the logic in Karan's suggestion. I would also prefer 3.1 beta.
Maybe 3.1 beta1 assuming we may have a beta 2 in the works later
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Karan Malhi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I was also thinking that 3.1-beta might be an option too. This way
we get to
announce twice, once for 3.1-beta and once for 3.1 . We also get to
keep the
release in sync with EJB 3.1 .
Just a thought, but I guess I am too late in expressing my
opinion , as the
voting already started and most people agree upon EJB 3.1. So, I
will give
my +1 to EJB 3.1 too :) .
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
On Jun 23, 2008, at 4:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
We might want to start thinking release pretty soon here.
Another topic is weather or not we want to call this 3.0.1 or 3.1.
I was just talking to one of the guys from InfoQ about the
upcoming release
and he definitely liked some of the new features but sort of went
cold on
the idea of a news post wanting to wait till 3.1. Got me thinking
that
maybe 3.0.1 isn't such a wise idea if we really want to get the
word out
there.
If you look at our changes, they're mostly new features and
improvements
with just a few bug fixes. My thoughts previous to talking with
him was
that we should reserve 3.1 for a more EJB 3.1 packed release. But
really we
already have a few great EJB 3.1 features like the embedded
testing stuff
and ejbs in wars.
Maybe the right answer is just to go for the gusto and call it
OpenEJB 3.1
and get people starting to think of us as EJB 3.1.
Thoughts?
-David
--
Karan Singh Malhi
