On Sep 30, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Fabio Mancinelli wrote: > Hi everybody, > > a follow-up about the discussion, sorry for the delay. > > I am working towards merging Jun's code in order to have a release. > > I think that my preference goes towards the following plan: > > 1) Leave the 1.2RC1 as it is and deprecate it > 2) Merge Jun's work in order to release it and call this release 1.3M1 > 3) Start fixing bugs (there are quite a few) in order to move forward > to a RC and final release > > I think this is a good approach because what Jun did is too much for a > RC1 -> RC2 transition (and as Sergiu said it warrants a new version), > and it still have some problems that must be fixed before calling it > RC. > > To solve Vincent's issue about "unfinished releases" what we could do > is to do a "combo" release: 1.2 Final with the current state of > 1.2RC1, and 1.3M1 with Jun's work. We announce the two at the same > time and we say that 1.2 is deprecated in favor of 1.3M1. We can put > this this information also in the download page, telling people that > 1.3M1 is the version they should actually use. > > WDYT?
ok. 2 remarks: * Sergiu mentioned a 2.0M1 release instead of 1.3M1. Does the amount of code changed warrant a 2.0M1 release? I think so. * I prefer we don't release a 1.2Final release and just mention somewhere that 1.2RC1 was the last version of the 1.x cycle. WDYT? Thanks -Vincent > -Fabio > > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sep 23, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: >> >>> On 09/23/2011 04:10 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>> Hi devs, >>>> >>>> Fabio and Eddy are working on merging Jun's GSOC code in master for >>>> XEclipse and are preparing for a release (could you send us a proposal >>>> guys?). >>>> >>>> It seems that the last release of XEclipse was 1.2RC1 so it's a bit of a >>>> shitty situation since normally so much change would have warranted a 1.3 >>>> release. >>>> >>>> However I'm proposing that the next release be 1.2RC2 and when we've >>>> tested it enough we then quickly release 1.2 final to get it over with. >>>> >>>> The alternative is to: >>>> - get the 1.2RC1 tag >>>> - release it again as 1.2 final >>>> - consider all Jun's changes to be 1.3M1 >>>> >>>> However that solution has 2 issues: >>>> - it's more time consuming >>>> - we're not 100% sure that the last 1.2RC1's quality was good enough to be >>>> named 1.2 final >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> My preferences goes to having Jun's code be in a 1.2RC2 release. >>> >>> I wonder if the changes are big enough to warrant a 2.0 release instead. >>> I'd be in favor of releasing 2.0 RC1. >> >> My only problem with that is that I don't like too much to leave some >> "unfinished release" (the last release we did was 1.2RC1). Maybe it doesn't >> matter… >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
