Am Dienstag, den 16.05.2006, 11:22 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann: > Stefano Bagnara wrote: > > Bernd Fondermann wrote: > > > >>> Btw if we don't identify changes/features to be added to the 2.3 > >>> branch then this week's release should be at least a beta or an rc: > >>> again I would like to hear more opinions than yours and mine about > >>> the roadmap. > >>> > >>> Probably in the next weeks we'll also test the trunk more, so I think > >>> we'll decide to backport it later (next alpha/beta?) if the trunk > >>> works fine. > >> > >> > >> Since there are major refactorings coming up, IMHO we need to get a > >> 2.3.0 release out of the door > >> and have a branch where to release bugfixes from (2.3.1+). > >> > >> The follow-up release (be it 2.4 or 3.0) should then be released out > >> of the trunk. > >> > >> Bernd > > > > > > Maybe my words were not so clear. When I wrote "backport it later" the > > *it* was related to the lock/unlock patch only and eventually bugfixes. > > ok, now I got it. > > > We already have a v2.3 branch with the content of the 2.3.0a2 unreleased > > version and a couple of merged bugfixes from trunk. > > I have not been able to track exactly where the branch happened, but if > it is stable I am fine with it. > > > I also agree that 2.4 will come out from trunk and not from the v2.3 > > branch, and I hope we won't need a 2.3.1 to fix bugs ;-) > > Your confidence is overwhelming me :-) > > > Do you think that the current v2.3 branch code is feature complete for > > 2.3.0 release and we should simply test and add critical bug fixes > > before a 2.3.0 final > > yes > > >or do you think there is something more to be done > > before a 2.3.0 final? > > in terms of adding features: no, not that I know of. > > at least JAMES-432 is yet to be done. we could as well set its priority > to BLOCKER. > > > That said I think that everyone will agree that we should release the > > current v2.3 as soon as possible: 2.3.0a3 or 2.3.0b1 or 2.3.0rc1 is not > > the main issue for the release itself, I just want to understand what > > we'll do the next weeks in that branch. > > I would not set that in stone. we can always decide later. for now, I > would give the 2.3-branch a rest after the release and keep new features > away from it.
Maybe a bit off topic but we should try to create a release cycle for the next releases. Maybe one "stable" release ever 6 month or something like that. bye Norman
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
