+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]
