Stefano Bagnara-2 wrote: > > I'm really happy to know that you use current trunk. This is one more > proof that the code there is usable not only by me and Norman ;-). > I could ask around but I think many more would try it if it would have a M1 label on it, despite the fact that it would be pretty similar to the nightly build.
Stefano Bagnara-2 wrote: > > Unfortunately there hasn't been consensus on branching to start a > release process from the trunk (in december) and the code didn't change > to much in the mean time, so I don't think we can expect something > different now. > But why a branch? Woudn't a tag be enough? I mean in the case of a Milestone 1. This would be just a little more than the nightly build, than later more one tag for M2, an so on. Stefano Bagnara-2 wrote: > > In the mean time I also stopped trying to include my patches in current > trunk as my local branch diverged too much from the current code and > being not able to smoothly push a new branch and a shared goal I had to > take this sad decision. > Please reconsider your decision. Your contributions make the most of the new 3.0, and also from the SVN statistic the few commiters that really do something for the project instead of voting everything with -1. Stefano Bagnara-2 wrote: > > Unfortunately, as far as I understand it currently no one of the active > committers is willing to prepare a release from the current code (and to > collect agreements for this). > But isn't the entire process automated? I mean it already runs nightly. It would be only required to stick a 3.0M1 label, tag that version and publish on the main site the collected JIRA changes (there's a plug-in that does that automatically). Stefano Bagnara-2 wrote: > > So I think that if every user using/wanting trunk code to be released > will put a list of new trunk features he is interested in and what > features he is already using (testing) succesfully from trunk this could > help the inactive PMC members to understand the quality and stability > and usability of what we have in trunk. > Sorry but shoudn't be this reversed? I.e. developers to convince users about the stability of their project and the importance to use it? If "inactive" members are such a bottleneck for the project(considering the overused veto right), why don't they simply quit? Is it so important for them that "membership"? Thanks, Toni. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/JAMES-3.0-Milestone-1-or-Alpha--tf4057827.html#a11560314 Sent from the James - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
