A beta release is exactly the same as a “regular” release. Just change the version in the pom to 2.1-beta1.
As for getting multiple versions on the site, other projects do that. Maven does it for older versions. It should just be a matter of copying the template they use. IMO the only reason to do a beta is if their are new features that we consider to be not-quite-ready for production. On the other hand, I consider an RC to be believed to be production ready but requiring additional feedback. FWIW - I find RCs a bit confusing since we vote on a “release candidate” with every release. Ralph On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps we can all take time until this weekend to clean up and polish before > you cut an RC... on Friday? > > Gary > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > I know that the work I was doing on log4j-web can wait for 2.2, so no > objections for going ahead with 2.1 from me. > > On 22 September 2014 19:25, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the site so he > suggested using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may not be easy > and will probably be significant work. > > As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so there's no > need to look into the implications of the beta idea further. > > Are there any items we still want to include in this release? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Matt, >> >> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta. >> >> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for it. >> >> Gary >> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release" >> profile doesn't seem appropriate. >> >> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x releases if >> issues are found. >> >> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site, making it >> 2.1 might be our best bet. >> >> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1 release >> (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)? >> >> When are we aiming to do this release? >> >> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1. >> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date. >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >> Spring Batch in Action >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > JUnit in Action, Second Edition > Spring Batch in Action > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
