Apache is kind of like Yoda - release or do not, there is no candidate. ;- )
“Release” is more of a licensing thing.. We’re putting out the Foundation’s assurance that the code is Apache-licensed and of known provenance. River is perfectly free to put out a release where we can’t swear to the actual quality of the code. I think what we agreed on was that we would release 3.0 as a kind of “technology preview” and let people have a go at it. Cheers, Greg Trasuk. On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Bryan Thompson <br...@systap.com> wrote: > Sounds good. Does Apache do release candidates as well? If not, > let's make sure that the existing deployed footprint (which is large) > has a chance to evaluate the branch before the 3.0 release. > > Bryan > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.re...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I didn’t want to add this to the thread that Patricia started, but IMO I’d >> like us to push for a new release ASAP. Peter’s done a ton of work, there >> are improvements needed to the RMI classloading approach that can help >> projects out there today that use OSGi, and we have to do something. >> >> What I’d like to suggest is we create version 3.0, rename the com.sun.jini >> namespace to org.apache.river, and produce a new release. Lets get this done >> over the next quarter. I know there are alot of details with this proposal, >> and esoteric discussions surrounding “what are we”, but we either release or >> die. IMO, its that simple. >> >> If anyone does not like whats in 3.0, they can still use 2.2.2. If bug fixes >> are needed for 2.2.2 we can still provide support for it. Release early, >> release often. >> >> Regards >> >> Dennis
