Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
IMHO this is too fast. We did not receive any feedback on the 2.2 stuff
from any non-committer (only people working with committers). We should
run through some release candidates first, which gives the users the
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Leszek Gawron wrote:
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:14:32 +0100
From: Leszek Gawron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: Release roadmap
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
IMHO
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
IMHO this is too fast. We did not receive any feedback on the 2.2 stuff
from any non-committer (only people working with committers). We should
run through some release candidates first, which gives the users the
Ralph Goers wrote:
+1. Does this avoid the problem of the Rhino license though (with 2.1)?
No :( But I think (though I'm not sure) that we have one year to change
something, so it should be fine to release 2.1.10 as is. But obviously
if we don't change 2.1.x, we won't be able to release something
Nathaniel Alfred wrote:
+1 to release 2.2-M2
+1 to release 2.1.10
+1 to drop block sharing
-1 to put 2.1.x into *pure* bug fixing mode
We should try to attract people to 2.2 rather than pushing them
away from 2.1 (because they may go somewhere else).
Agreed.
SNIP/
So my proposal is
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 27.10.2006 20:57, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
We can then target the final release of 2.2 for December.
WE SHOULD REALLY GET 2.2 OUT *THIS YEAR*.
IMHO this is too fast. We did not receive any feedback on the 2.2
stuff from any non-committer (only people working with
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 27.10.2006 20:57, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
The release of 2.1.10 should be the last planned release for 2.1.x - we
should drop the block sharing between trunk and the branch of the blocks
right after the release and continue development of things only in trunk
from that
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
IMHO this is too fast. We did not receive any feedback on the 2.2 stuff
from any non-committer (only people working with committers). We should
run through some release candidates first, which gives the users the
impression of having something
Has someone attended to the remaining licensing issues?
I managed to update all the headers in source files
and will do so again just before the releases.
However, that is all that i can do.
The remaining tasks were noted in some past emails.
Going by memory they were:
NOTICE.txt and
+1. Does this avoid the problem of the Rhino license though (with 2.1)?
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Our last official release has happened a long time ago...
I think it's time to release something again :) Imho we should release
2.2-M2 asap and 2.1.10 as well. I think 2.1.10-dev is currently
+1 to release 2.2-M2
+1 to release 2.1.10
+1 to drop block sharing
-1 to put 2.1.x into *pure* bug fixing mode
We should try to attract people to 2.2 rather than pushing them
away from 2.1 (because they may go somewhere else).
I expect to be stuck with 2.1.x for the next 1-2 years. That's a
On 28.10.2006 12:37, Nathaniel Alfred wrote:
-1 to put 2.1.x into *pure* bug fixing mode
Selling to management another
migration project before 2008 would be very hard, especially since
the current 2.2 has new feature really interesting to us.
Something is wrong with that sentence I guess.
On 27.10.2006 20:57, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
The release of 2.1.10 should be the last planned release for 2.1.x - we
should drop the block sharing between trunk and the branch of the blocks
right after the release and continue development of things only in trunk
from that point on.
+1
So my
Thanks Carsten for the roadmap:
+0 to release 2.2-M2 (as I probably won't find time to help)
+1 to release 2.1.10
+1 to drop block sharing
And, like Alfred, I'm
-1 on making 2.1.10 the last 2.1.x release
I think maintenance mode is much more appropriate for 2.1.x than no
more updates, I don't
From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Selling to management another
migration project before 2008 would be very hard, especially since
the current 2.2 has new feature really interesting to us.
Something is wrong with that sentence I guess. I miss the logic: You
can't sell
Our last official release has happened a long time ago...
I think it's time to release something again :) Imho we should release
2.2-M2 asap and 2.1.10 as well. I think 2.1.10-dev is currently working
pretty fine and there shouldn't be any outstanding issues. Or did I
oversee something?
The
On 10/27/06, Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
So my idea is to release 2.1.10 in the midth of November and do at the
same time (or even before) a release of 2.2-m2.
+1 (can I vote +2.1.10?)
We can then target the
final release of 2.2 for December.
+1 assuming that it is
17 matches
Mail list logo
