Maybe we can call the "release candidate" a "candidate release", while the
traditional RC is still an RC. So in this case, we do CRs for the official
release (which I believe was how you suggested naming tags).

On 23 September 2014 11:40, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>> 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
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker <[email protected]>

Reply via email to