Second the motion!You did a great job last time around, and unless someone else has a burning desire to leap over the cliff with a hankie for a parachute, you're it.
Craig On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
We also need a release manager (a person who will do what Marc and Mike did for 0.9.6 and 0.9.7).Unless anyone else has a desire to do the 1.0.0 release, I'll nominate myself, since I think I have a good idea about the things that need to be changed in the build process to accommodate our TLP status.On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:I think we need to first go through the list of JIRA issues for 0.9.8 and 1.0.0 and really think hard about whether they should be fixed or not.We also need a release manager (a person who will do what Marc and Mike did for 0.9.6 and 0.9.7).Maybe we should post the list of proposed deferred JIRA issues for discussion and then move them. I like the idea of defining both a 1.0.1 and 1.1.0 release target to which to defer issues.I think once there is consensus on the non-deferred issues and an identified JIRA owner for them, the release manager can propose when to make a branch. Once the branch is cut, fixes would have to be made in both branch and trunk, so it's not a trivial decision.Maybe a wiki with a table of JIRA issues and proposed target release and some justification (with author's name) would be useful. It's not too hard to set up but still might not be worth the effort.Craig On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:What is remaining to get to a 1.0 release? Are there any things in particular that people think are important to work on? Maybe it's about time for us to create a branch for 1.0 finalization and hardening.This probably depends on what our goal is for a 1.0 release. If it's just to have a 1.0 release since we graduated to a TLP, then we're probably close to starting that process. But, if we are looking for a certain level and hardness of function, then we still may have a fews things to clean up. I'm okay with going for a 1.0 release just to have one, but I would then like tostart working on defining the follow-on release (1.0.1 or 1.1).No matter what type of 1.0 release we decide to go for, maybe we should incorporate the voting mechanism within JIRA to help determine what Issues are important? I am not totally familiar with this process, but it allows users to vote on the Issues that are most important to them. Each user is allowed a certain number of votes (to keep them from voting for "all"Issues). We can use that as input to our selection criteria.But, before we open up for a vote, do we need some time to review all of the open Issues and assert 1.0 vs post-1.0? Something along the lines of what Patrick did for the previous release? I just find it kind of difficult to be working on various problems and then "ding", the timer goes off and we've cut off development for a given release. It's probably time to startworking out a candidate release cycle and content. KevinCraig RussellArchitect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
