Ted, I will roll a release as soon as you say 'go'. If you and/or Martin (or anyone else that has time and patience to deal with me) could help with questions wrt label/branch/etc.
-- James Mitchell Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist EdgeTech, Inc. 678.910.8017 AIM: jmitchtx ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: CVS -> SVN / Roadmap > Ted Husted wrote: > > >+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. :) > > > > > +1 I vote we (or perhaps I specifically) integrate struts-chain this > weekend. It is stable, and I've been using it in production for some > time without problems. Course that also means we (again, perhaps I > specifically) should release commons-chain 1.0. Ted, there are a few > Guinnesses in it if you help me with the documentation.... :) > > >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 :) > > > > > Ah, Guinness - the ultimate currency. You got yourself a deal. > > Don > > >-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] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
