mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
Date Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:45:47 GMT
Until 2.0 GA we should leave the trunk as is.  When we go to GA after some
number of milestones then we can create the 2.0 branch which will only
include bug fixes.  Right now the bleeding edge is the trunk.  This is where
all new features and API changes occur.

I think we can do milestone releases while there are JIRA issues associated
with new features and API changes.  Then we can announce a feature/API
freeze.  We can release some GA candidates that stabilize the trunk in
preparation for the GA release: not that we're not stable but this option
exists.

Then when we all have agreed that a GA should be cut we can branch, tag and
release.  The trunk becomes 2.1 or whatever we like to call it.  Only bug
fixes occur on the 2.0 branch.  New features and API changes go into 2.1 in
the trunk.

Does this sound reasonable?

BTW we should have cut a M1 or M0 (the first milestone release) from the
trunk a while back.  I had asked when this would happen.  There is no limit
to the number of milestone releases we can have.  So let's pump one out.  If
something pops up that presents some urgency we can release again.  Let's
follow the release early, release often mantra.

Alex


On Feb 10, 2008 4:05 PM, Maarten Bosteels <mbosteels.dns@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 10, 2008 9:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Feb 10, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Maarten Bosteels wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Feb 10, 2008 5:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Is it ready?  You're only at M1.  What are the next milestones
> > >> planned
> > >> before you hit beta?
> > >
> > >
> > > The version numbering scheme is described at the bottom of
> > > http://mina.apache.org/downloads.html [1]
> > >
> > > IMO we should have created 2.0-M0 a few months ago. But for some
> > > reason we
> > > have been postponing it as long as there were open JIRA issues that
> > > could
> > > require an API change.
> > >
> > > According to [1] we are allowed to make API changes between M1 and M2
> > > but of course it's nicer for the user if we can avoid it.
> > >
> > > I just had a look at JIRA at there were more open issues than I
> > > thought (6)
> > > but no show-stoppers AFAICS.
> > >
> > > Maybe we should have a vote about cutting 2.0-M0 ?
> >
> > Maybe I'm being dense.  You mean 2.0-RC1?  When do you guys cut a
> > branch to stabilize your beta?  Does it depend on the situation?
> >
>
> Good question.
>
> In my very humble opinion "cutting 2-0-M1" means :
> (a) creating a 2.0 branch
> and
> (b) creating a 2.0-M1 tag
>
> All further development for 2.0 would then happen on the 2.0 branch
> instead
> of on the trunk.
> Isn't that the usual way to proceed ?
>
> Maarten
>
>
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message