My initial idea was the same. But as I gathered some experience with
WCK which works with both 2.1 and (upcoming 2.2) I am no longer for
separate releases. Of course Daniel's arguments are valid, but I think
they are outdone by the drawbacks. Maintaining compatibility to more
than a release really is hard and unpleasant work.

Oliver


On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 21:22:30 +0100, Daniel Florey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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]

Reply via email to