The biggest argument splitting Slide into smaller pieces would be to avoid releasing part that didn't change at all with different version numbers. Why releasing webdavclient in release 2.2 in there is no difference between 2.1 and 2.2 (as an example)? So I'd like to see independent releases for: 1. Slide server+stores 2. Webdavclient library 3. Commandline client 4. WCK 5. Projector 6. Testsuite I know that this would be a lot of initial work, but it might be easier later on to make individual releases as we don't have to take care of all subcomponents. And as subcomponents don't have to wait for each other releases with new features can be released earlier. But as I don't have much time at all to work on it, I do not vote for it ;-)
Cheers, Daniel > -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:slide-dev-return-14961-apmail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Oliver Zeigermann > Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Dezember 2004 18:52 > An: Slide Developers Mailing List > Betreff: Re: [POLL] 2.2 release time frame > > On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 09:40:09 -0800, James Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I'd be fine with a release, I think. I'd really prefer to release 2.1 > > before 2.2, though ;). > > Hihi > > > Should we pursue splitting the releases for 2.2, or keep going the way > > we have been with a single large release? > > Good question. The only candidats would be > > a) the testsuite, > b) projector, and > c) WCK > > a) evolves with Slide and the 2.1 test suite works with the 2.1 > release only and the CVS head test suite works with the cvs head only. > So, spinning this off would make little sense IMHO > b) No idea, Daniel? > c) WCK more and more relies on 2.2, but still works with 2.1. It would > make sense to release it all by itself, but I have already learned the > tough way how hard it is to maintain it for even two versions of Slide > (2.1 and CVS head). > > In short I would vote for doing one large release. Of course this is > more work for you, James. If this is too much for you, maybe we can > find another solution... > > Oliver > > > > -James > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 18:24 +0100, Oliver Zeigermann wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > > > I am a bit concerned about the duration of our release cycles. E.g. > > > some contributions in 2.1 are much older than half a year before they > > > are even released as stable. > > > > > > Apache rule is to release early and often. > > > > > > My proposal is to speed up the cycle for 2.2 and subsequent releases > > > and put less new stuff into each of them. My impression is that 2.2 > > > almost has got enough new features to justify a new release. > > > > > > What do you think? What do you want to add and when? What is in your > > > pipeline for 2.2? Mine is empty... > > > > > > Oliver > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
