Ok thats a good point. But then could at least all those "out of date" pages be reviewed this weekend. Nothing is worse then an outdated documentation. (better remove outdated information which no longer suits the release to prevent confusion)
I think the release paradigm would be a nice information to be publicated ;) (wasn't that obvious to me). Regards, Dominik On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Am Freitag, den 30.05.2008, 15:08 +0200 schrieb Dominik Süß: > > Proposal for this and future releases: > > Versionname: 2.0.0-RC1 > > I disagree. Our initial release is not a release candidate. The code is > good and works and is proven. It is just documentation which still > lacking and which we are constantly enhancing. > > > And trying to define a roadmap leading to the final release. > > There is no final release and there never will be ;-) > > We expect to have a constant stream of releases once the first > full-blown release has been cut. Remember we will release all-at-once > just once. After that, each module will have its own release cycle and > versioning. > > This is not to say, that we neglect your concerns regarding > documentation, we have the same. But we also have other concerns. And so > we weight the concerns against each other and come to the conclusion to > release-early-release-often, even though documentation is not 100% up to > date. > > Regards > Felix > > > Dominik > > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Dominik Süß <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > So why is it defined as major release(just looking at the version > number) > > > > without being a final release?... > > > > > > Good point, I agree that 2.0.0 might sound a bit too final for the > > > current state of the project - the code is fairly solid and > > > feature-complete, but I agree with you that docs and examples are > > > lacking. > > > > > > I would feel better if the version number was 0.9.0, but considering > > > that we've been using 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT for ages, I doubt it is possible > > > to change that at this point, without causing major Maven confusion > > > (aaarghhh - we don't want Maven confusion do we?). > > > > > > What do others think? > > > > > > -Bertrand > > > > >
