On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > <snip> > > >> Re. JMS. I'm a little nervous about putting completely new function out in >> 1.3.1. JMS changes that fix deficiencies from 1.3 would be candidates >> though. >> >> >> > What is it that makes you nervous about adding the JMS changes? There are > no "rules" about what should go into a release named 1.x as opposed to 1.x.x > so i think its fine to add new function in a 1.x.x style release. If the > concern is that it may delay getting some critical fixes released then maybe > we just need to coordinate 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 releases? > > Doing releases based on the previous release tag is relatively easy as > demonstrated by the 1.2.1 release. It takes minimal work to do and to > review, it makes it easy to document the changes, its an easy way to get new > function released, and it can be done by individuals instead of requiring > lots of community help. As i just suggested on the "1.3 Washup, release > process improvement" this seems like and easy way to RERO given the size of > Tuscany these days. > > ...ant > > I'll start making the 1.3.1 branch today and merge in and fixes from JIRAs in Java-SCA-1.3.1. The main one outstanding is TUSCANY-2539 if anyone has some time. I'll leave the JMS changes for the time being waiting a little longer to see if there are any reasons why it should not go into 1.3.x. ...ant
