Re: [RESULT] [vote] Version for pending release

> The result was:
>
> #1: 6 binding: Mark H., Jason, Brett, Wendy, Dan F., Dan K.
>    2 non-binding: Ralph, Raphael
>
> #2: 2 binding: Brian, Dennis
>    2 non-binding: Mauro, Stephen
>
> If you're following the other thread ("Maven 2.1.0 GA Plan") you'll  
> see that I've started to formalize the suggestions I made for  
> features to be included in 2.1.0 in Confluence. This is by no means  
> set in stone; in fact, for two of the features, we're still waiting  
> on design documentation before I'm comfortable committing to them.
>
> I'd like to know if anyone would like to put a different issue on  
> the plan, and/or maybe talk about bumping one or more of these  
> features to 2.2...in short, I was hoping to solicit some discussion  
> about what we're going to be building for 2.1.0.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -john
>
> John Casey wrote:
>> Okay,
>> Let's put it to a vote. We have two options:
>> 1. Release the current release candidate as milestone 1 of the  
>> 2.1.0 codeline. The version for this release would be 2.1.0-M1.
>> The advantage of this approach is that it keeps is (relatively)  
>> focused on only three simultaneous codebases, not four. It provides  
>> a stable foundation for building out a small set of new features  
>> for a final GA release of 2.1.0. This release will have no new  
>> features, and its only goal is backward compatibility with the  
>> maximum stability possible. To me, this isn't enough to distinguish  
>> it from 2.0.x. However, the implementation details are such that it  
>> deserves to be separate.
>> The disadvantage is that a -M1 release may not attract as many  
>> users, and the performance/stability gains may not be compelling  
>> enough to overcome the psychological barrier of moving from 2.0.9  
>> to 2.1.0-M1.
>> 2. Release the current release candidate as 2.1.0 GA.
>> The advantage here is that the work we've put into stabilizing this  
>> RC is probably more worth of a GA release, and by calling it 2.1.0  
>> we can tell our users how solid we think it is. Additionally,  
>> calling this 2.1.0 means that the only thing we could do for 2.1.1,  
>> 2.1.2, etc. would be to fix any regressions that cropped up without  
>> adding risk from new features.
>> The major disadvantage is that it will mean that some of us are  
>> adding new features to 2.2.0 (parent-versioning, reactor changes,  
>> etc.) while others are trying to push out regression fixes on 2.0.x  
>> and 2.1.x, while still others are introducing large-scale changes  
>> on the 3.0.x branch. I'm personally not sure we can drive four  
>> parallel codelines to release in a timely manner.
>> So, let's vote. Just indicate whether you support #1 or #2.
>> My vote is for #1.
>> Thanks,
>> -john
>
> --
> 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@...
>