On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:33 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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 > > It wasn't really a philosophical objection to putting new function in the release. More a comment on how much work is required to test and verify a release with new function in it. Simon
