----- "Brett Porter" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 out of date).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.
I think we could start with branching the trunk for the 1.2.x series and then do the enhancements/bug fixes that we initially planned for 2.0 in a 1.2.3? What do the others think?
