Why not go to 2.0 with all strength directly? and make 1.2.x only bugfix. I think that the frequent release plan(1.3,1.4,1.5...) is one bad idea.these will confuse many users...
igor.vaynberg wrote: > > pasted from almaw's email on @user > > -igor > > -------------------------- 8>< > -------------------------------------------- > > In my opinion we could, within the next: > ----------------------------------------- > 1 week - Push 1.3-betas as-is. > 2/3 weeks - Bug fix as people test it and push out rc's when > we feel it's solid and stable. > 4 weeks - Rename 1.x branch to 1.3.x. > - Release 1.3.0 final and put 1.3.x immediately into > maintenance mode. > - Create 1.4.x branch from 1.3.0 tag. > - Merge the model changes from trunk to 1.4.x. > - Backport anything else from trunk to 1.4.x that's > not JDK5-specific. > 6 weeks - Push out 1.4-betas > 7/8 weeks - Push out 1.4-rc's > 9 weeks - Push out 1.4.0 final > - Create 1.5.x branch from 1.4.0 tag. > - Backport/add generics, covariance and other JDK 5 trunk > features to the 1.5.x branch. > - Move trunk to "2.0_deprecated_-_use_1.5.x_instead" > 14+ weeks - Release 1.5.0 > > Suggestions to make this work: > ------------------------------ > We won't backport from 1.4.x -> 1.3.x. > We won't actively develop trunk. > We will push 1.4 out very soon after 1.3, and encourage migration. > We will have this in a public roadmap so people can see it coming. > > Notes on what you think is insanity, but actually isn't: > -------------------------------------------------------- > We will of course end up with five(!) branches (1.2.x, 1.3.x, 1.4.x, > 1.5.x and what's currently trunk). This may seem like madness to you, > but I reckon it isn't: > > During 1.3 development, 2.x is low activity, 1.2.x negligible. > During 1.4 development, 1.3.x and 2.x are low, 1.2.x negligible. > During 1.5 development, only 1.4.x will also be quite active. > > Once 1.5.0 is out, we can properly deprecate 2.0. People currently using > it may not like being told to migrate to 1.5.x, but that shouldn't be > too hard (much less hard than going from 1.3->2.0) and there shouldn't > be too many of them. I guess that's the price you sometimes pay for > using unreleased software. :-/ > > I'd envisage 1.4.x will require some backports from 1.5.x. We'd > obviously encourage core developers and patchers to upgrade their sites > to use 1.5.x, do active development on that, and therefore try to only > ever backport from 1.5.x to 1.4.x, not forward-port the other way around. > > If you think I'm smoking crack, the above is utterly unreasonable, you > want to kick me out of the gang, or you have any better ideas or > suggestions as to how to keep everyone happy, please shout now. :-) > > Best regards, > > Alastair > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/roadmap-tf3366743.html#a9371386 Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
