I completely agree, the question of what we call the next 3 related release?
As much as starting over with M1 would be nice we already have released artifacts with M1-M4 and RC1 names. I'd bet that would cause a fair amount of confusion. So is starting at M5 and only doing milestone releases until we have a real RC the way to go? I'm thinking yes but I'd like some confirmation. -Eric Andrew Petro wrote: > Eric, > > I strongly feel that we should take care in the naming of releases to > reflect what they are. The amount of new functionality snuck in > post-RC on 2.6.0 was probably too much and probably slowed things up, > someone should slap my wrist. > > While the uPortal sandbox project produced a release named a "release > candidate" I think on sober second thought that was a mistake -- that > it wasn't actually a candidate for release since it was acknowledged > at the time to lack significant amounts of needed functionality. > > Going forward IMHO we should absolutely switch back to producing > milestones until there's something that's a candidate for release. RC > needs to mean something that is functionally complete and releasable > but for a need for QA. > > Andrew > > >> I'm also looking for ideas on naming versions in Jira. We have >> already had M1 through M4 and an RC from the sandbox code. Should we >> start with a 3.0.0-M5 and then go to a RC2 once we're at the RC stage? >> >> -Eric >> > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
