On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Simon Nash <n...@apache.org> wrote: > Florian MOGA wrote: >> >> Current naming with beta isn't that flexible. We could continue doing a >> lot of betaX releases or start naming betaX.X. I'm fine with both of them. >> After we get 2.0 out we can start having 2.0.1, 2.0.2 ... 2.1, 2.1.1, ...., >> 2.2 and things will get more obvious. >> >> Regarding samples, we can either move them to unreleased/ and move them >> back as they get fixed or we can just open a ticket with subtasks for each >> sample to keep track of them. I assume we're now doing a 'minor' release so >> doesn't really matter at the moment. >> > IMO it would be better to only include samples that work. It's > frustrating and confusing for users when they attempt to run a sample > that's included in a release and find that it doesn't work. > > Are there a few samples that could be got working quite easily? > If so, I think it would be good to include those few in this release > and move the rest to unreleased/ until the next major release. > If the release includes working samples (even a few) then we could > regard it as a "major" release. > > Simon >
That sounds reasonable but what does "work" mean? Up till now we've had no minimum standard so anyone can add anything to samples/ and it gets included in a release. I'd probably in favour of tightening that up a bit now but I wonder if we'd agree on a minimum set of requirements. We have samples with no Ant build, no doc, no obvious way of running them, and not even a sentence in a README saying what the purpose of the sample is, but some of them do still "work" if you happen to know what to do with it. Must there be proper tests so we know if the sample gets broken? What if someone doesn't particularly care about Ant builds so doesn't write a build.xml, is that sample excluded or is a release held up till someone else write the build file? ...ant
