[OS-webwork] Releasing 1.3 and new development
People have been adding new stuff, like the Velocity based templates, while the head is still (as far as I know) supposed to be 1.3 RC2. I like new stuff (see Xwork), but we really need to branch 1.3 to keep it clean of new stuff so we can develop against the head. If we end up needing to release 1.3.1 or somesuch to fix bugs, then we'll need the 1.3 source tree as a base to work from without keeping people from moving forward. Jason -- Jason Carreira Technical Architect, Notiva Corp. phone: 585.240.2793 fax: 585.272.8118 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Notiva - optimizing trade relationships (tm) --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] Releasing 1.3 and new development
I like webwork head cvs, and want to see it keep moving forward. We can tag a release (1.3) anytime now, really. Only thing that perhaps needs doing is updating some of the docs, and having decent release notes. xwork is still sandbox, and is nowhere near production worthy (right?) and I'd much rather than those of us who enjoy webwork and contributing to it don't end up feeling like second class citizens in favour of xwork. Quoting Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]: People have been adding new stuff, like the Velocity based templates, while the head is still (as far as I know) supposed to be 1.3 RC2. I like new stuff (see Xwork), but we really need to branch 1.3 to keep it clean of new stuff so we can develop against the head. If we end up needing to release 1.3.1 or somesuch to fix bugs, then we'll need the 1.3 source tree as a base to work from without keeping people from moving forward. Jason -- Jason Carreira Technical Architect, Notiva Corp. phone:585.240.2793 fax:585.272.8118 email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Notiva - optimizing trade relationships (tm) --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
RE: [OS-webwork] Releasing 1.3 and new development
I am in total agreement. A stable 1.3 branch is definitely needed. I think it would be very confusing for a new WW user to be expected to pull from the CVS head when the head potentially changes minute by minute. The 1.2 release has been totally ignored because work continued on the head to create the 1.3 release. IMO the feature sets should be better defined with specific goals so that developers know when a release is ready to be baked. I might be wrong but it seems that 1.3 was arbitrarily created because its been long enough since the 1.2 release. Consistent logging, performance enhancements and stability seems to be the goals of 1.3 from what I can tell. I an very confident that myself and several others on this list would help to maintain the 1.3 branch if necessary. BTW great job guys! WW does indeed rock! Regards, Kirk Rasmussen Lucasfilm Ltd. -Original Message- From: Jason Carreira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 7:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Releasing 1.3 and new development Nononono you misunderstood. My bad. I want to branch 1.3 to be able to do bug fixes for any future 1.3.x releases. I want to keep the CVS head for continuing development and new features with a view to a 1.4 release. Xwork 1.0 and Webwork 2.0 can, and should, remain in the sandbox for now, until a LOT of issues are worked out and it's been fleshed out to do everything that WW 1.3 does. My point was really to be able to get back to 1.3 for bug fixes while not keeping people from continuing to develop against the CVS head. I'm not terribly comfortable with CVS, so I was throwing this out for someone to do. If we were using Perforce, I would create a branch, because branching is fast and low cost and it's how you do most code management in P4. Jason -Original Message- From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Releasing 1.3 and new development I like webwork head cvs, and want to see it keep moving forward. We can tag a release (1.3) anytime now, really. Only thing that perhaps needs doing is updating some of the docs, and having decent release notes. xwork is still sandbox, and is nowhere near production worthy (right?) and I'd much rather than those of us who enjoy webwork and contributing to it don't end up feeling like second class citizens in favour of xwork. Quoting Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]: People have been adding new stuff, like the Velocity based templates, while the head is still (as far as I know) supposed to be 1.3 RC2. I like new stuff (see Xwork), but we really need to branch 1.3 to keep it clean of new stuff so we can develop against the head. If we end up needing to release 1.3.1 or somesuch to fix bugs, then we'll need the 1.3 source tree as a base to work from without keeping people from moving forward. Jason -- Jason Carreira Technical Architect, Notiva Corp. phone:585.240.2793 fax:585.272.8118 email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Notiva - optimizing trade relationships (tm) --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld =omething 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
RE: [OS-webwork] Releasing 1.3 and new development
+1 to all of that. Who wants to (and knows how to) create a branch? -Original Message- From: Kirk Rasmussen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 1:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Releasing 1.3 and new development I am in total agreement. A stable 1.3 branch is definitely needed. I think it would be very confusing for a new WW user to be expected to pull from the CVS head when the head potentially changes minute by minute. The 1.2 release has been totally ignored because work continued on the head to create the 1.3 release. IMO the feature sets should be better defined with specific goals so that developers know when a release is ready to be baked. I might be wrong but it seems that 1.3 was arbitrarily created because its been long enough since the 1.2 release. Consistent logging, performance enhancements and stability seems to be the goals of 1.3 from what I can tell. I an very confident that myself and several others on this list would help to maintain the 1.3 branch if necessary. BTW great job guys! WW does indeed rock! Regards, Kirk Rasmussen Lucasfilm Ltd. -Original Message- From: Jason Carreira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 7:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Releasing 1.3 and new development Nononono you misunderstood. My bad. I want to branch 1.3 to be able to do bug fixes for any future 1.3.x releases. I want to keep the CVS head for continuing development and new features with a view to a 1.4 release. Xwork 1.0 and Webwork 2.0 can, and should, remain in the sandbox for now, until a LOT of issues are worked out and it's been fleshed out to do everything that WW 1.3 does. My point was really to be able to get back to 1.3 for bug fixes while not keeping people from continuing to develop against the CVS head. I'm not terribly comfortable with CVS, so I was throwing this out for someone to do. If we were using Perforce, I would create a branch, because branching is fast and low cost and it's how you do most code management in P4. Jason -Original Message- From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Releasing 1.3 and new development I like webwork head cvs, and want to see it keep moving forward. We can tag a release (1.3) anytime now, really. Only thing that perhaps needs doing is updating some of the docs, and having decent release notes. xwork is still sandbox, and is nowhere near production worthy (right?) and I'd much rather than those of us who enjoy webwork and contributing to it don't end up feeling like second class citizens in favour of xwork. Quoting Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]: People have been adding new stuff, like the Velocity based templates, while the head is still (as far as I know) supposed to be 1.3 RC2. I like new stuff (see Xwork), but we really need to branch 1.3 to keep it clean of new stuff so we can develop against the head. If we end up needing to release 1.3.1 or somesuch to fix bugs, then we'll need the 1.3 source tree as a base to work from without keeping people from moving forward. Jason -- Jason Carreira Technical Architect, Notiva Corp. phone: 585.240.2793 fax: 585.272.8118 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Notiva - optimizing trade relationships (tm) --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webw ork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld =omething 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld =omething 2 See
