On 11/10/2010, at 4:06 PM, Josimpson Ocaba wrote: > > > -- > Joe Ocaba > ----- "Brett Porter" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 09/09/2010, at 12:35 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> First congrats on 1.2.1 and the successful move to apache. >>> >>> Removing UAC/RDF seems to me like pretty major surgery. Could we >> perhaps get >>> some more point releases out before that work is ready for release? >> >> I agree - as long as there are people willing to drive it. As I said >> earlier, this would be good to do in parallel - it's a good time to >> focus on the "major surgery", but we don't want that to stop releases >> either. >> > > I agree with doing minor releases. > > a. NPanday is relatively new to Apache (although most of its developers are > not) this will help us as a community on getting used to doing the releases > and when we do a major release we will have a from actual experience > reference. > b. Getting the fixed items out to users for consumption is always a great > welcome from any point of view (keeping in mind that we keep the bugs to a > minimum if not zero )
Good points! >>> >>> I'd like to get http://npanday.codeplex.com/workitem/13452 into the >> next >>> release, which I should get committed pretty soon, now the apache >> move is >>> complete. >> >> The SVN move is complete, so you can commit when ready - either way >> it'll be on the right branch :) >> >> We can gradually move over the other infrastructure as we go. >> >>> >>> If the UAC work would be very disruptive, it might be better to do >> that on a >>> feature branch, while other smaller work continues on the trunk. >> Then when >>> the branch has stabilised a bit, it can come back to trunk. >>> >>> (forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn...I'm the release/build >> manager at >>> my work, so I have ways I like to do things :) >> >> I'd be fine with this, or the alternative of branching a "stable >> branch" (npanday-1.2.x) and having trunk for the other work. I tend to >> prefer the latter as you only ever have to merge the branch to trunk, >> not trunk to branch and then back again (or risk the branch getting >> out of date). >> >> - Brett > > > We now have branches for the "UAC Removal" and the "VS2010 Support" and I > think that once we have these things stabled. We can merge them into trunk > and then update trunk to 2.0 or a milestone release version so that we can > continue the spirit of having the latest features out there for consumption. > > In conjunction with these we also propose that we branch of 1.2.x before > merging the other branches, so that we still have a solid stable point to > support the 1.2.x series. > So which would come first? Remember the first release here has a lot of prerequisites to complete first and will take a bit of time to complete. - Brett -- Brett Porter [email protected] http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
