|
»
»
« Return to Thread: Fwd: What do we need to establish?
Re: What do we need to establish?
by brettporter
::
Rate this Message:
I suggest we take this one to a vote (perhaps Wendy could kick it
off), with the options:
- Maven style (alpha, beta, final, point release)
- Eclipse style (M1, M2, M3, final, point release - though Eclipse
don't have the last ones)
- httpd style (.0.0, .0.1, .0.2, .0.3)
And here are my opinions:
- I'm tired of the Maven style. I've heard people actually saying it's
ok to break things because it's just an alpha. I would rather
encourage development practices that mean every release should be
production quality.
- But I'm a realist - releases need broader testing to assess
production quality.
- milestones seem more akin to a set roadmap per release that gets
done in stages, rather than timeboxing
- httpd-style can be a little confusing to users, at least at first
(will the real release please stand up?). I think this is mitigated by
only putting the final final releases on release repo and mirrors
- httpd-style is not very effective for "milestones", since you end up
making the 20th or 30th release your first "real" release
- Hudson uses the extreme of the last style (everything is a feature
release, everything is a final release)
Cheers,
Brett
On 11/05/2008, at 12:01 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:38 PM, James William Dumay
> <james@...> wrote:
>> Forgot to add: I propose that the next release of Archiva will be
>> 1.1-milestone1. As each major feature is completed, we increment
>> that number
>> and the last milestone becomes 1.1.0.
>
> Why? What's so special about 1.1? Version numbers are free, we can
> make more. And there is no marketing department involved here. :)
>
> One of the reasons we made this change for Struts is that it makes no
> sense in a volunteer organization to have to re-do a release and vote
> (a non-trivial amount of work and time) just to change the filename on
> a distribution. (Assuming 1.1-beta-3 is good, you have to re-do the
> process to get it changed to 1.1.)
>
> If it's milestones I'd prefer 1.1-M1 to spelling out milestone. Or
> just go with 1.1-beta-1 since that's what people are used to.
>
> That's it from me, at this point I'll defer to the people actually
> doing the work on releases. :) Anyone else have an opinion?
>
> (And for the record, I was not awake at 1AM. :) For some reason the
> mac didn't shut down when I closed it..)
>
> --
> Wendy
--
Brett Porter
brett@...
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
off), with the options:
- Maven style (alpha, beta, final, point release)
- Eclipse style (M1, M2, M3, final, point release - though Eclipse
don't have the last ones)
- httpd style (.0.0, .0.1, .0.2, .0.3)
And here are my opinions:
- I'm tired of the Maven style. I've heard people actually saying it's
ok to break things because it's just an alpha. I would rather
encourage development practices that mean every release should be
production quality.
- But I'm a realist - releases need broader testing to assess
production quality.
- milestones seem more akin to a set roadmap per release that gets
done in stages, rather than timeboxing
- httpd-style can be a little confusing to users, at least at first
(will the real release please stand up?). I think this is mitigated by
only putting the final final releases on release repo and mirrors
- httpd-style is not very effective for "milestones", since you end up
making the 20th or 30th release your first "real" release
- Hudson uses the extreme of the last style (everything is a feature
release, everything is a final release)
Cheers,
Brett
On 11/05/2008, at 12:01 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:38 PM, James William Dumay
> <james@...> wrote:
>> Forgot to add: I propose that the next release of Archiva will be
>> 1.1-milestone1. As each major feature is completed, we increment
>> that number
>> and the last milestone becomes 1.1.0.
>
> Why? What's so special about 1.1? Version numbers are free, we can
> make more. And there is no marketing department involved here. :)
>
> One of the reasons we made this change for Struts is that it makes no
> sense in a volunteer organization to have to re-do a release and vote
> (a non-trivial amount of work and time) just to change the filename on
> a distribution. (Assuming 1.1-beta-3 is good, you have to re-do the
> process to get it changed to 1.1.)
>
> If it's milestones I'd prefer 1.1-M1 to spelling out milestone. Or
> just go with 1.1-beta-1 since that's what people are used to.
>
> That's it from me, at this point I'll defer to the people actually
> doing the work on releases. :) Anyone else have an opinion?
>
> (And for the record, I was not awake at 1AM. :) For some reason the
> mac didn't shut down when I closed it..)
>
> --
> Wendy
--
Brett Porter
brett@...
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
« Return to Thread: Fwd: What do we need to establish?
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
