« Return to Thread: [PROPOSAL] Going forward with Maven 2.x releases
Re: [PROPOSAL] Going forward with Maven 2.x releases
by John Casey-5
::
Rate this Message:
I'm okay with making the current RC a first milestone toward 2.1.0, if
we know what the endgame for 2.1.0 is. How do we know when we're done?
Also, can we focus on having a 2.1.0 GA out in the next two or so
months? It's been since April that we had a release, and that one had
some pretty big problems that are keeping people away. I don't want to
set the bar too high on these releases, especially when there's so
little development time to go around. IMO, if we can start out with
*some* success, we can build off of that and keep things moving.
Personally, I'd much rather see 3-4 new features every three months in a
GA release, instead of 12-16 new features in a year. It also gives us a
much better chance of making our releases stable and predictable.
As far as the performance problems on the 2.1.x branch, that's on my
todo list for tomorrow, to merge in my changes from the RC branch to get
the 2.1.x branch back up to snuff. Sorry that's been slow coming (no pun
intended) but I'm starting to get caught up WRT SVN syncing now, so
hopefully tomorrow will be the day.
As far as supporting 3 codelines, my own thought is to keep 2.0.x on
life support long enough to get a GA release of 2.1 out (and maybe a
little longer, I don't know what's really feasible here), but not to
spend too much time spit-shining 2.0.x anymore. If we can find a way to
fix the most broken features without bringing down the rest of that
house of cards, then that'll be good enough for me.
Brett, Christian, I think JIRA voting is a great way to "weight" the
survey results with the users' priorities, but I want to make sure we
have an alternate mechanism that allows us to talk about features -
which will be sets of JIRA issues, in reality - outside of an
issue-tracking context. We need to use Confluence for this sort of work,
writing proposals that can be reviewed and voted on, IMO. I was just
thinking that Dennis' use of the survey system was a great idea, and
could be a perfect fit for this sort of planning.
-john
Ralph Goers wrote:
> I should have read your email before I replied. I pretty much agree with
> all of what you are proposing. FWIW, the bug I am working on is MNG-624
> and yes, it has a ton of votes. It also addresses MNG-3057, MNG-2446,
> MNG-2412 and probably several others that are related. My change is
> pretty much working but I want to test more and unfortunately it is on
> the current 2.1.x branch which runs terribly slow. I am sure I am going
> to have conflicts when I try to merge it in with 2.0.10-RC so I am not
> in too much of a hurry to commit it anywhere until we figure out which
> branch is the "real" 2.1.x.
>
> Ralph
>
> Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>> On 26/08/2008, at 6:44 AM, John Casey wrote:
>>
>>> To start, I'd personally prefer to see the code we current have in
>>> the release process designated as 2.1.0. It's seen a lot of change to
>>> the internal implementations, and while we've gone to great lengths
>>> to ensure it's functionally compatible with 2.0.x, it contains a
>>> fairly risky level of change for a revision release. This means that
>>> the 2.0.x branch would be rolled back to the 2.0.9 release, and we'd
>>> proceed toward a 2.0.10 that fixes the worst of the regressions with
>>> a minimal of code change. At that point, I'd prefer to see 2.0.x go
>>> into end-of-life mode soon, with 2.1 and later replacing it.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From there, I'd propose that we make a plan. I think we have a long
>>> list of features we'd like to implement and other features we'd
>>> really like to reimplement. No doubt each of us has his/her
>>> favorites, but what I'd like to suggest is using the survey tool we
>>> used for the plugin priorities to come up with a ordered set of
>>> priorities for the features we want to include. Then, we can chop
>>> that list up (maybe every fourth feature), and call them 2.2, 2.3,
>>> 2.4, etc. At this point, 2.1 would be a baseline that is as near as
>>> possible to perfect compatibility with 2.0.x, and 2.1.1 might fix
>>> regressions in that code until we have the agreed-upon features for
>>> 2.2 done.
>>
>> +1 to the approach. I like the idea of having a clear objective for
>> when it is "done". I think we could do milestone/beta releases along
>> the way to get some feedback on the new features.
>>
>> I would lean towards still doing that for 2.1: make the current 2.0.10
>> code a milestone/beta release to see how it goes in the wild as is (I
>> believe these will still get reasonable exposure), and pick off 3 or 4
>> important features to include for the final release. However, if
>> consensus is to just go as is for 2.1 and immediately move to 2.2
>> that's fine with me too.
>>
>> I say this because we basically already have implementations for
>> reactor changes, pgp security, and parallel downloads, for example.
>> I'm watching the secure passwords thing with keen interest as well,
>> and I know Ralph has something in mind I think for MNG-612 which is
>> the most voted for feature - so these could be done in a managable
>> fashion in a short amount of time to have a fairly compelling upgrade
>> release. About the only other thing I'd add to that is a review of
>> what behaviour we want to deprecate so we can start getting it out in
>> subsequent versions, and move all other features to 2.2+.
>>
>>> In case you're concerned about who's going to drive the items on this
>>> list, my own feeling is that it needs to capture the sense of the
>>> development community. To that end, the survey should be conducted
>>> among developers, without direct input from users. However, each
>>> developer should be acting in the interests of the user community at
>>> least part of the time, so we need to focus on balancing the cool
>>> with the useful to make sure our releases are relevant to users.
>>
>> +1, I'm happy with starting to encourage JIRA voting as the way to
>> guide features that are in demand by users.
>>
>>> Of course, it also means that all of us will sometimes have to be
>>> patient for the feature near and dear to our hearts to come up in the
>>> release plan, and help get the other things out of the way first.
>>> However, I think this could help us unify a lot of the different
>>> directions we all seem to be heading WRT Maven's core, and maybe keep
>>> things moving forward at a steady pace.
>>
>> Need to be careful with this - I would say we choose the features that
>> people are willing to work on. As long as someone is upfront about
>> what they are going to do, it is done properly and we agree that it's
>> good for Maven, we should have room to add things to the release. It's
>> a balance - we don't want to get in the way of good work, but we don't
>> want to lose focus either.
>>
>> I think it would be a non-issue if we have some clear objectives set
>> out up front since the willing contributors are involved in both parts
>> of the process. Common sense will dictate whether something is a good
>> addition or a disruptive change at the time.
>>
>>> To get things started, we have a long list of proposals out here:
>>>
>>> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/All+Proposals
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, from users, we have these:
>>>
>>> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/User+Proposals
>>>
>>>
>>> But I'm sure this is at most 10% of what people have in mind for
>>> Maven. Maybe we can have a short discussion of things we need to be
>>> doing in the relatively near term for the health of Maven, then cap
>>> that discussion and turn it into a survey to help us consolidate
>>> priorities. Then, we can chop them up into a release plan and get
>>> started.
>>
>> Sounds good. How about we open the permissions on the MAVEN space to
>> everyone and move all the proposals into one place?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@...
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
--
John Casey
Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
we know what the endgame for 2.1.0 is. How do we know when we're done?
Also, can we focus on having a 2.1.0 GA out in the next two or so
months? It's been since April that we had a release, and that one had
some pretty big problems that are keeping people away. I don't want to
set the bar too high on these releases, especially when there's so
little development time to go around. IMO, if we can start out with
*some* success, we can build off of that and keep things moving.
Personally, I'd much rather see 3-4 new features every three months in a
GA release, instead of 12-16 new features in a year. It also gives us a
much better chance of making our releases stable and predictable.
As far as the performance problems on the 2.1.x branch, that's on my
todo list for tomorrow, to merge in my changes from the RC branch to get
the 2.1.x branch back up to snuff. Sorry that's been slow coming (no pun
intended) but I'm starting to get caught up WRT SVN syncing now, so
hopefully tomorrow will be the day.
As far as supporting 3 codelines, my own thought is to keep 2.0.x on
life support long enough to get a GA release of 2.1 out (and maybe a
little longer, I don't know what's really feasible here), but not to
spend too much time spit-shining 2.0.x anymore. If we can find a way to
fix the most broken features without bringing down the rest of that
house of cards, then that'll be good enough for me.
Brett, Christian, I think JIRA voting is a great way to "weight" the
survey results with the users' priorities, but I want to make sure we
have an alternate mechanism that allows us to talk about features -
which will be sets of JIRA issues, in reality - outside of an
issue-tracking context. We need to use Confluence for this sort of work,
writing proposals that can be reviewed and voted on, IMO. I was just
thinking that Dennis' use of the survey system was a great idea, and
could be a perfect fit for this sort of planning.
-john
Ralph Goers wrote:
> I should have read your email before I replied. I pretty much agree with
> all of what you are proposing. FWIW, the bug I am working on is MNG-624
> and yes, it has a ton of votes. It also addresses MNG-3057, MNG-2446,
> MNG-2412 and probably several others that are related. My change is
> pretty much working but I want to test more and unfortunately it is on
> the current 2.1.x branch which runs terribly slow. I am sure I am going
> to have conflicts when I try to merge it in with 2.0.10-RC so I am not
> in too much of a hurry to commit it anywhere until we figure out which
> branch is the "real" 2.1.x.
>
> Ralph
>
> Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>> On 26/08/2008, at 6:44 AM, John Casey wrote:
>>
>>> To start, I'd personally prefer to see the code we current have in
>>> the release process designated as 2.1.0. It's seen a lot of change to
>>> the internal implementations, and while we've gone to great lengths
>>> to ensure it's functionally compatible with 2.0.x, it contains a
>>> fairly risky level of change for a revision release. This means that
>>> the 2.0.x branch would be rolled back to the 2.0.9 release, and we'd
>>> proceed toward a 2.0.10 that fixes the worst of the regressions with
>>> a minimal of code change. At that point, I'd prefer to see 2.0.x go
>>> into end-of-life mode soon, with 2.1 and later replacing it.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From there, I'd propose that we make a plan. I think we have a long
>>> list of features we'd like to implement and other features we'd
>>> really like to reimplement. No doubt each of us has his/her
>>> favorites, but what I'd like to suggest is using the survey tool we
>>> used for the plugin priorities to come up with a ordered set of
>>> priorities for the features we want to include. Then, we can chop
>>> that list up (maybe every fourth feature), and call them 2.2, 2.3,
>>> 2.4, etc. At this point, 2.1 would be a baseline that is as near as
>>> possible to perfect compatibility with 2.0.x, and 2.1.1 might fix
>>> regressions in that code until we have the agreed-upon features for
>>> 2.2 done.
>>
>> +1 to the approach. I like the idea of having a clear objective for
>> when it is "done". I think we could do milestone/beta releases along
>> the way to get some feedback on the new features.
>>
>> I would lean towards still doing that for 2.1: make the current 2.0.10
>> code a milestone/beta release to see how it goes in the wild as is (I
>> believe these will still get reasonable exposure), and pick off 3 or 4
>> important features to include for the final release. However, if
>> consensus is to just go as is for 2.1 and immediately move to 2.2
>> that's fine with me too.
>>
>> I say this because we basically already have implementations for
>> reactor changes, pgp security, and parallel downloads, for example.
>> I'm watching the secure passwords thing with keen interest as well,
>> and I know Ralph has something in mind I think for MNG-612 which is
>> the most voted for feature - so these could be done in a managable
>> fashion in a short amount of time to have a fairly compelling upgrade
>> release. About the only other thing I'd add to that is a review of
>> what behaviour we want to deprecate so we can start getting it out in
>> subsequent versions, and move all other features to 2.2+.
>>
>>> In case you're concerned about who's going to drive the items on this
>>> list, my own feeling is that it needs to capture the sense of the
>>> development community. To that end, the survey should be conducted
>>> among developers, without direct input from users. However, each
>>> developer should be acting in the interests of the user community at
>>> least part of the time, so we need to focus on balancing the cool
>>> with the useful to make sure our releases are relevant to users.
>>
>> +1, I'm happy with starting to encourage JIRA voting as the way to
>> guide features that are in demand by users.
>>
>>> Of course, it also means that all of us will sometimes have to be
>>> patient for the feature near and dear to our hearts to come up in the
>>> release plan, and help get the other things out of the way first.
>>> However, I think this could help us unify a lot of the different
>>> directions we all seem to be heading WRT Maven's core, and maybe keep
>>> things moving forward at a steady pace.
>>
>> Need to be careful with this - I would say we choose the features that
>> people are willing to work on. As long as someone is upfront about
>> what they are going to do, it is done properly and we agree that it's
>> good for Maven, we should have room to add things to the release. It's
>> a balance - we don't want to get in the way of good work, but we don't
>> want to lose focus either.
>>
>> I think it would be a non-issue if we have some clear objectives set
>> out up front since the willing contributors are involved in both parts
>> of the process. Common sense will dictate whether something is a good
>> addition or a disruptive change at the time.
>>
>>> To get things started, we have a long list of proposals out here:
>>>
>>> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/All+Proposals
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, from users, we have these:
>>>
>>> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/User+Proposals
>>>
>>>
>>> But I'm sure this is at most 10% of what people have in mind for
>>> Maven. Maybe we can have a short discussion of things we need to be
>>> doing in the relatively near term for the health of Maven, then cap
>>> that discussion and turn it into a survey to help us consolidate
>>> priorities. Then, we can chop them up into a release plan and get
>>> started.
>>
>> Sounds good. How about we open the permissions on the MAVEN space to
>> everyone and move all the proposals into one place?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@...
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
--
John Casey
Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
« Return to Thread: [PROPOSAL] Going forward with Maven 2.x releases
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
