On 11/08/2008, at 3:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
So it looks like the general consensus is:
- Cut a 2.1.x branch from a 2.0.x tag (I saw 2.0.9 and 2.0.10 float
by as options)
- Call trunk 3.0-SNAPSHOT
We'll just bugfix 2.0.x. The 2.1.x branch will be the mediator
toward 3.0, and given
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:16 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Versioning Maven (was: Re: Maven 2.1 development IRC
roundtable)
On 08/08/2008, at 12:24 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
Is TRUNK really 3.0? Hmm.. Maybe not. I think it is only
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Mauro Talevi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Milos Kleint wrote:
please, please, let's not add anything else to trunk (2.1) and
stabilize it. I've been waiting for a stable embeddable version for 2
years and with the number of work (complete rewrites of everything)
I think having the intermediary bridge is a good idea, and I would be
comfortable finding the last stable version of trunk that works with
Mevenide and then release that and then leave that as a stable branch
for you to work off.
One of the problems is that your code seems not to be very
Jason,
The issues I'm finding (or my userbase actually) are not with mevenide
integration. It's also not something I could test on my side. It's in
99% of cases incompatibilities with 2.0.x. And it's not a reoccuring
pattern, no trunk-to-trunk regressions. So no test could save me from
it
On 10-Aug-08, at 9:05 PM, Milos Kleint wrote:
Jason,
The issues I'm finding (or my userbase actually) are not with mevenide
integration. It's also not something I could test on my side. It's in
99% of cases incompatibilities with 2.0.x. And it's not a reoccuring
pattern, no trunk-to-trunk
So it looks like the general consensus is:
- Cut a 2.1.x branch from a 2.0.x tag (I saw 2.0.9 and 2.0.10 float
by as options)
- Call trunk 3.0-SNAPSHOT
We'll just bugfix 2.0.x. The 2.1.x branch will be the mediator toward
3.0, and given the mediator exists we're a lot safer doing a 3.0-
Brian E. Fox wrote:
I have been saying that the trunk is too changed for 2.1 for a while
also. I think having it as 3.0 is probably the logical thing to do and
then we can really buckle 2.0 down as it should be and start making
these bigger destabilizing fixes/small features to a 2.1 branch cut
Milos Kleint wrote:
please, please, let's not add anything else to trunk (2.1) and
stabilize it. I've been waiting for a stable embeddable version for 2
years and with the number of work (complete rewrites of everything)
in the branches, a stable maven.next looks years ahead again.
Not having
2.0.10 gets worked out real soon, perhaps we even go back
to 2.0.9 and branch there (ie 2.0.10 becomes 2.1.0)
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:16 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Versioning Maven (was: Re: Maven 2.1
-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:16 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Versioning Maven (was: Re: Maven 2.1 development IRC
roundtable)
On 08/08/2008, at 12:24 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
Is TRUNK really 3.0? Hmm.. Maybe not. I think
)
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:16 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Versioning Maven (was: Re: Maven 2.1 development IRC
roundtable)
On 08/08/2008, at 12:24 PM, Paul Benedict
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can call it whatever version. At this point I don't think it much
matters.
I'd like to see the current trunk moved to a code-named branch, so
that we can make incremental improvements in 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc.
In the
If you are actually helping to develop the core code then I'm sure
that's definitely one of the approaches we could take.
On 7-Aug-08, at 10:18 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can call it whatever version. At this point I
Wendy Smoak wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can call it whatever version. At this point I don't think it much
matters.
I'd like to see the current trunk moved to a code-named branch, so
that we can make incremental improvements in 2.1, 2.2,
This is exactly why I'd like to put the current trunk code on the path of
being released as 3.0. We have tons of things that could reasonably be
improved in 2.0.x, but aren't really appropriate in such a minor release as
2.0.11. We could move toward larger feature introductions like import
not a bad idea john...
the major concern I would have is that 3.0 in this case is already the
basis of all the embedder work (ie IDE development) while the
2.0.x-2.1 releases would in essence have to be forward compatible
with 3.0 because of that...the build in the IDE _ought_ to work the
same as
On 08/08/2008, at 5:45 AM, John Casey wrote:
This is exactly why I'd like to put the current trunk code on the
path of being released as 3.0. We have tons of things that could
reasonably be improved in 2.0.x, but aren't really appropriate in
such a minor release as 2.0.11. We could move
Is TRUNK really 3.0? Hmm.. Maybe not. I think it is only appropriate
to bump the first number when you make a major architecture change. It
was totally appropriate between 1.x and 2.x because the code bases are
absolutely incompatible. Why I should believe the same for TRUNK now?
It still looks
On 08/08/2008, at 12:24 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
Is TRUNK really 3.0? Hmm.. Maybe not. I think it is only appropriate
to bump the first number when you make a major architecture change. It
was totally appropriate between 1.x and 2.x because the code bases are
absolutely incompatible. Why I
20 matches
Mail list logo
