+1

Let's stick to the roadmap we laid out in July.

http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html

I'll update the site to reflect the CVS/SVN changes this weekend and bring the roadmap 
page up to date.

If James is up for rolling a 1.2.5 release, that's fine with me.

Either way, it may be time to call 1.2.x a branch and dub the head 1.3.x, and bring 
down that-there Struts Chain gizmo. :)

And if Don wants to start setting up struts-flow and struts-scripting along the same 
lines as struts-faces, I'll buy him a Guiness (or three) at ApacheCon :)

-Ted.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:45:58 -0700, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:23:32 +0200, Anders Steinlein
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Forgive my possible ignorance, but what is the policy on new
>> releases? I've understood that we can release whenever we want,
>> that version numbers are cheap and that you vote whether to make
>> a release alpha/beta/GA. But, what goes into a release? Does new
>> features/enhancements go into a 1.2.x release, or is it strictly
>> bug fixes?
>>
>>
> What we've talked about before is along these lines:
>
> Within the 1.2.x series, it's fine to fix bugs and add new stuff,
> but not fine to make any backwards-incompatible changes.
>
> For a 1.3.x series, we could be more liberal about adding new
> stuff, and possibly have some deprecations in 1.2.x that get
> removed -- but it shoujld in general be based on similar enough
> architectural principles that there be a clear upgrade path.
>
> The challenge, of course, is when do you make that split for the
> evolutionary path?  I'd say that something as fundamental as using
> Struts Chain instead of the monolithic RequestProcessor, and the
> other changes we could make as a result of having that, would be
> good grounds for a 1.3.x series.  If that were to start in the
> short term, then thinking of 1.2.x as being in maintenance mode
> seems likely (although if there's willingness to port features back
> and forth, it need not go that way immediately ... for example,
> Tomcat 4.1.x continued to develop for a little while at the
> beginning of 5.0.x, including some features ported back and forth,
> but this pretty much stopped as soon as there was a solid 5.0.x
> release for people to use).
>
> For a 2.x chain, we could have the freedom to be somewhat more
> aggressive at rearchitecting ("if we'd known then what we know now,
> what would Struts have looked like?"), and could in theory have a
> series of alpha releases in parallel with stable releases on 1.2 or
> 1.3.  As others have pointed out, how much simultanaeity there is,
> and how often releases happen, is more based on the directed energy
> of the committers (and what they want to work on), and less on
> whether there are parallel development efforts going on.
>
>> The reason I ask is because I would love releases much, much more
>> often, but as have been pointed out, incompatibilities/quirks
>> between minor versions could be a disaster.
>>
>>
> Historically, I'd say our 1.0 -> 1.1 transition was, in terms of
> interoperability and upgrade, a bit on the edge of what most users
> liked, while the 1.1 -> 1.2 transition was much easier to do.  We
> haven't actually gotten around to many x.y.z releases on 1.0 or
> 1.1, so having them happen at all in 1.2 should be a refreshing
> change :-). But I agree with you that compatibility is especially
> important within an x.y release cycle.
>
>> \Anders
>>
> Craig
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
> additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to