kelvin goodson wrote:
Luciano,
can you confirm in the JIRA whether the updated fix is good? I'll
keep an eye on this thread to see how your plans develop, and what
that might mean for SDO release plans.
Kelvin.
On 10/09/2007, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have found an
?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Aug 27, 2007 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next
release, was: SCA 0.92 release?
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/27/07, ant
: Aug 27, 2007 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next
release, was: SCA 0.92 release?
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/27/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/9/07, Venkata Krishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Aug 27, 2007 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next
release, was: SCA 0.92 release?
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/27/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/9
(was Re: Release management for next
release, was: SCA 0.92 release?
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/27/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/9/07, Venkata Krishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
- Post 0.95, maybe a couple of weeks after the release
Cutting the branch around the 14th to give more time to get the
release into shape sounds good.
We always seems to run into lots of minor sample problems when
we produce an RC and I would expect that we would use some of
the time after cutting the branch to fix these up and polish the
samples.
On the question of differing JIRAs, I think it depends on the JIRA :)
We have to be careful making too many changes in the branch as previously
there's always been regressions due to changes. There's also the question of
who does the work - just raising a JIRA doesn't get the problem fixed and
This sounds pretty close to what I had in mind. But I'm concerned about
cutting the branch before the 14th. IMO the 14th is the earliest
possible date we could cut the branch that would allow us to get enough
done in the trunk to put us in a position to move into this more
controlled mode.
Taking the branch on the 14th and making an RC1 on the 14th is possible,
just the RC is likely to be a little rough as there won't be much time at
all to do checking. But as we're talking about RC1 not expected to be _the_
RC then i guess that could be fine.
...ant
On 8/28/07, Simon Nash
On 8/9/07, Venkata Krishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
- Post 0.95, maybe a couple of weeks after the release, we'd cut
another branch and head with that for 1.0 release. Being a 1.0
release, we prob. need a branch early as that so that we can whet the
things we are targetting for the
On 8/27/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/9/07, Venkata Krishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
- Post 0.95, maybe a couple of weeks after the release, we'd cut
another branch and head with that for 1.0 release. Being a 1.0
release, we prob. need a branch early as that so
ant elder wrote:
On 8/9/07, Venkata Krishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
- Post 0.95, maybe a couple of weeks after the release, we'd cut
another branch and head with that for 1.0 release. Being a 1.0
release, we prob. need a branch early as that so that we can whet the
things we are
12 matches
Mail list logo
