[x] Freeze the code, move to MINA 2.0-RC1
But if we can freeze in M4, and work on doco for RC1, that would be fine !
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
[X] Freeze the code, move to MINA 2.0-RC1
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:04 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys,
I think it's time to stop discussing for ever and to start a vote.
MINA 2.0.0-Mx is around for months now, and we have more and more users
developing applications
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
[] Continue to add new features to MINA 2.0 milestones until we reach a
stable point
[] Freeze the code, move to MINA 2.0-RC1
[] I abstain
Non-binding
[x] Freeze the code, move to MINA 2.0-RC1
Get 2.0 out, let users migrate, drop 1.0 and 1.1.
--
Eero Nevalainen
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[X] Freeze the code, move to MINA 2.0-RC1
Let's go!
/niklas
[X] Freeze the code, move to MINA 2.0-RC1
--
thanks
ashish
Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
Emmanuel Lecharny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[] Continue to add new features to MINA 2.0 milestones until we reach a
stable point
[X] Freeze the code, move to MINA 2.0-RC1
[] I abstain
If we select (1), we will have to determinate the clear roadmap,
otherwise we won't be able to
Oliveira-
http://tedorg.free.fr/en/main.php
De : Eero Nevalainen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À : dev@mina.apache.org
Envoyé le : Mardi, 18 Novembre 2008, 12h49mn 29s
Objet : Re: [Votes] MINA 2.0-RC1
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
[] Continue to add new features to MINA 2.0
This will allow on focusing a big road map for 3.0 maybe hitting some 2.1,2.2 on the road to progressively
introduce some changes and see how community reacts to them.
May I suggest that we use a clear notation for 'unstable' versions? With
the current one (ie, 2.0.0-Mx), people tend to
: dev@mina.apache.org
Envoyé le : Mardi, 18 Novembre 2008, 14h32mn 17s
Objet : Re: Re : [Votes] MINA 2.0-RC1
This will allow on focusing a big road map for 3.0 maybe hitting some 2.1,2.2
on the road to progressively introduce some changes and see how community
reacts to them.
May I suggest
Edouard De Oliveira wrote:
By drawing aside N.1 and N.2 do you mean we will only do bug fixes on the 2.0 branch and new features will only
go to 2.5 branch ? I'm not saying i disagree i just want to make your statement more clear.
This is exactly what I have in mind. However, it's just a
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:04:14 +0100
Emmanuel Lecharny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys,
I think it's time to stop discussing for ever and to start a vote.
MINA 2.0.0-Mx is around for months now, and we have more and more
users developing applications around it. We have tons of proposal to
[x] Freeze the code, move to MINA 2.0-RC1
But I agree with Julien, that the docs should improve before going to RC
-1 for using a N.5 for unstable versions, and N.0 for stable versions.
I really dislike conventions based on numbers. We already discussed this in
the past :
Maarten Bosteels wrote:
[x] Freeze the code, move to MINA 2.0-RC1
But I agree with Julien, that the docs should improve before going to RC
We just have to define a clear roadmap for doco. What about releasing
2.0.0-M4, and fix the doco for 2.0.0-RC1 ?
-1 for using a N.5 for unstable
13 matches
Mail list logo
