proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees

[brettporter]

With the 2.2.0 release coming up, I've started to find the amount of  
merging (and consistency of it) is becoming harder, and I think it  
might be inevitable that there'll be confusion from users about what  
release is the right one to use.

I'd like to suggest the following:
- remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch -  
there seems no point in releasing 2.1.1 if 2.2.0 is out (2.2.1 could  
be released for the fixes made that aren't on the RC branch).
- promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all  
bugfix work towards 2.2.x
- a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already  
committed there.
- declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch

Any concerns with this approach?

- Brett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Benjamin Bentmann]

Brett Porter wrote:

> - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch -

+1

> - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all
> bugfix work towards 2.2.x

+1

> - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already
> committed there.

+1

> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch

+1

Let's move forward and get focused on Maven 2.2+.


Benjamin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Paul Benedict-2]

Hmm...

>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch

What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to
it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it.

Paul

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Arnaud HERITIER]

+4 also
Cheers,

Arnaud

# Arnaud Héritier
# http://blog.aheritier.net


On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Benjamin Bentmann <
benjamin.bentmann@...> wrote:

> Brett Porter wrote:
>
>  - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch -
>>
>
> +1
>
>  - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all bugfix
>> work towards 2.2.x
>>
>
> +1
>
>  - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already
>> committed there.
>>
>
> +1
>
>  - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>
>
> +1
>
> Let's move forward and get focused on Maven 2.2+.
>
>
> Benjamin
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

[Arnaud HERITIER]

Myself, I prefer to create a branch only when I need it.
If one day we need to work on 2.0.x, we'll start a new branch copied
from the last tag. We have already in SVN many branches for which we
don't know if they are useful or not.

Cheers,

Arnaud

# Arnaud Héritier
# http://blog.aheritier.net


On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@...> wrote:

> Hmm...
>
> >> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>
> What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to
> it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it.
>
> Paul
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

[John Casey-5]

+4

Brett Porter wrote:

> With the 2.2.0 release coming up, I've started to find the amount of
> merging (and consistency of it) is becoming harder, and I think it might
> be inevitable that there'll be confusion from users about what release
> is the right one to use.
>
> I'd like to suggest the following:
> - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch -
> there seems no point in releasing 2.1.1 if 2.2.0 is out (2.2.1 could be
> released for the fixes made that aren't on the RC branch).
> - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all
> bugfix work towards 2.2.x
> - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already
> committed there.
> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>
> Any concerns with this approach?
>
> - Brett
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[brettporter]

Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question  
about whether to merge to it or not.

- Brett

On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:

> Hmm...
>
>>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>
> What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to
> it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it.
>
> Paul
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[BRIAN FOX-5]

Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I
feel like it's EOL now.

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porter<brett@...> wrote:

> Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question about
> whether to merge to it or not.
>
> - Brett
>
> On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>
>> Hmm...
>>
>>>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>
>> What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to
>> it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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@...
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[brettporter]

On 30/06/2009, at 12:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote:

> Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I
> feel like it's EOL now.

There's a couple of useful things in there, and given that they've  
already been merged up there it seems like a nice way to wrap up the  
series.

I also get the feeling for one reason or another some people are  
holding off on going past 2.0.x, so as much as anything I think it's a  
good way to get the message out that it's the last 2.0.x release and  
that all those fixes and more are included in 2.2.0 (which will  
already be out).

Cheers,
Brett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Jason van Zyl-5]

On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote:

> Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I
> feel like it's EOL now.
>

I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x  
line because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and  
users will probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too  
many inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor  
versions happened a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think  
the 2.0.x line will still be in widespread use for the next year.

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porter<brett@...> wrote:
>> Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no  
>> question about
>> whether to merge to it or not.
>>
>> - Brett
>>
>> On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm...
>>>
>>>>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>>
>>> What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to
>>> it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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@...
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
----------------------------------------------------------

Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.

  -- Benjamin Franklin


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Paul Benedict-2]

Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch
release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being
conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an
organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release.

Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1 from
2.0? JIRA notes are for the "geeks" but a general summary would be
worthwhile.

I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme.

Paul

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van Zyl<jvanzyl@...> wrote:

> On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>> Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I
>> feel like it's EOL now.
>>
>
> I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x line
> because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and users will
> probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many
> inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions happened
> a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line will still
> be in widespread use for the next year.
>
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porter<brett@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question
>>> about
>>> whether to merge to it or not.
>>>
>>> - Brett
>>>
>>> On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmm...
>>>>
>>>>>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>>>
>>>> What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to
>>>> it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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@...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
> http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.
>
>  -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[nicolas de loof-2]

Brett Porter wrote:

- remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch -
>

+1

- promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all bugfix
> work towards 2.2.x
>

+1

- a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already
> committed there.
>

+1

- declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>

non binding -1 : The 2.0 user base is still large, most of them just don't
yet use the latest 2.0.10. We could just promote 2.2.x as the latest stable
release BUT still consider a critical bug-fix branch for 2.0.x

2009/6/30 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@...>

> Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch
> release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being
> conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an
> organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release.
>
> Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1 from
> 2.0? JIRA notes are for the "geeks" but a general summary would be
> worthwhile.
>
> I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme.
>
> Paul
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van Zyl<jvanzyl@...>
> wrote:
> > On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I
> >> feel like it's EOL now.
> >>
> >
> > I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x line
> > because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and users
> will
> > probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many
> > inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions
> happened
> > a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line will
> still
> > be in widespread use for the next year.
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porter<brett@...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question
> >>> about
> >>> whether to merge to it or not.
> >>>
> >>> - Brett
> >>>
> >>> On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hmm...
> >>>>
> >>>>>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
> >>>>
> >>>> What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to
> >>>> it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> 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@...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
> >>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Jason van Zyl
> > Founder,  Apache Maven
> > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> > http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
> > http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.
> >
> >  -- Benjamin Franklin
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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@...
>
>

[Christian Edward Gruber-2]

+1 to Nicholas' assessment.  Too many firms I've worked with won't be  
changing to 2.1/2.2 until it's been in production release for several  
months, and probably won't trust it.  They'll need critical bug  
support on 2.0.  We just need a window for migration, that's all.

cheers,
Christian.

On Jun 30, 2009, at 9:52 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:

> Brett Porter wrote:
>
> - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch -
>>
>
> +1
>
> - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all  
> bugfix
>> work towards 2.2.x
>>
>
> +1
>
> - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already
>> committed there.
>>
>
> +1
>
> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>
>
> non binding -1 : The 2.0 user base is still large, most of them just  
> don't
> yet use the latest 2.0.10. We could just promote 2.2.x as the latest  
> stable
> release BUT still consider a critical bug-fix branch for 2.0.x
>
> 2009/6/30 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@...>
>
>> Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch
>> release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being
>> conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an
>> organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release.
>>
>> Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1 from
>> 2.0? JIRA notes are for the "geeks" but a general summary would be
>> worthwhile.
>>
>> I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van Zyl<jvanzyl@...>
>> wrote:
>>> On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in  
>>>> 2.0.11? I
>>>> feel like it's EOL now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x  
>>> line
>>> because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and  
>>> users
>> will
>>> probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many
>>> inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions
>> happened
>>> a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line  
>>> will
>> still
>>> be in widespread use for the next year.
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porter<brett@...>  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no  
>>>>> question
>>>>> about
>>>>> whether to merge to it or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Brett
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never  
>>>>>> return to
>>>>>> it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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@...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>> http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
>>> http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.
>>>
>>> -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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@...
>>
>>

Christian Edward Gruber
christianedwardgruber@...
http://www.geekinasuit.com/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[BRIAN FOX-5]

That's all fine, I'm just saying that 2.0.10 has been out for a while
now without any serious show stoppers that I'm aware of. 2.0.9 and
2.0.10 are very stable, I would rather see effort spent on the 2.2.x
line instead.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Christian
Gruber<christianedwardgruber@...> wrote:

> +1 to Nicholas' assessment.  Too many firms I've worked with won't be
> changing to 2.1/2.2 until it's been in production release for several
> months, and probably won't trust it.  They'll need critical bug support on
> 2.0.  We just need a window for migration, that's all.
>
> cheers,
> Christian.
>
> On Jun 30, 2009, at 9:52 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
>
>> Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>> - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch -
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all bugfix
>>>
>>> work towards 2.2.x
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already
>>>
>>> committed there.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>>
>>
>> non binding -1 : The 2.0 user base is still large, most of them just don't
>> yet use the latest 2.0.10. We could just promote 2.2.x as the latest
>> stable
>> release BUT still consider a critical bug-fix branch for 2.0.x
>>
>> 2009/6/30 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@...>
>>
>>> Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch
>>> release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being
>>> conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an
>>> organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release.
>>>
>>> Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1 from
>>> 2.0? JIRA notes are for the "geeks" but a general summary would be
>>> worthwhile.
>>>
>>> I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van Zyl<jvanzyl@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I
>>>>> feel like it's EOL now.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x line
>>>> because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and users
>>>
>>> will
>>>>
>>>> probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many
>>>> inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions
>>>
>>> happened
>>>>
>>>> a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line will
>>>
>>> still
>>>>
>>>> be in widespread use for the next year.
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porter<brett@...> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> whether to merge to it or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Brett
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to
>>>>>>> it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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@...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>> http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
>>>> http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.
>>>>
>>>> -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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@...
>>>
>>>
>
> Christian Edward Gruber
> christianedwardgruber@...
> http://www.geekinasuit.com/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[Christian Edward Gruber-2]

No arguments with that statement.

Christian.

On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Brian Fox wrote:

> That's all fine, I'm just saying that 2.0.10 has been out for a while
> now without any serious show stoppers that I'm aware of. 2.0.9 and
> 2.0.10 are very stable, I would rather see effort spent on the 2.2.x
> line instead.
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Christian
> Gruber<christianedwardgruber@...> wrote:
>> +1 to Nicholas' assessment.  Too many firms I've worked with won't be
>> changing to 2.1/2.2 until it's been in production release for several
>> months, and probably won't trust it.  They'll need critical bug  
>> support on
>> 2.0.  We just need a window for migration, that's all.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Christian.
>>
>> On Jun 30, 2009, at 9:52 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
>>
>>> Brett Porter wrote:
>>>
>>> - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN  
>>> branch -
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all  
>>> bugfix
>>>>
>>>> work towards 2.2.x
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes  
>>> already
>>>>
>>>> committed there.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>>>
>>>
>>> non binding -1 : The 2.0 user base is still large, most of them  
>>> just don't
>>> yet use the latest 2.0.10. We could just promote 2.2.x as the latest
>>> stable
>>> release BUT still consider a critical bug-fix branch for 2.0.x
>>>
>>> 2009/6/30 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@...>
>>>
>>>> Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next  
>>>> patch
>>>> release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being
>>>> conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an
>>>> organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch  
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1  
>>>> from
>>>> 2.0? JIRA notes are for the "geeks" but a general summary would be
>>>> worthwhile.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van  
>>>> Zyl<jvanzyl@...>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in  
>>>>>> 2.0.11? I
>>>>>> feel like it's EOL now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the  
>>>>> 2.0.x line
>>>>> because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and  
>>>>> users
>>>>
>>>> will
>>>>>
>>>>> probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many
>>>>> inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor  
>>>>> versions
>>>>
>>>> happened
>>>>>
>>>>> a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x  
>>>>> line will
>>>>
>>>> still
>>>>>
>>>>> be in widespread use for the next year.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porter<brett@...>  
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no  
>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> whether to merge to it or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Brett
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never  
>>>>>>>> return to
>>>>>>>> it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> 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@...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>> http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
>>>>> http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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@...
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Christian Edward Gruber
>> christianedwardgruber@...
>> http://www.geekinasuit.com/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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@...
>

Christian Edward Gruber
christianedwardgruber@...
http://www.geekinasuit.com/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[nicolas de loof-2]

I'm also fine with this, just would like to avoid some "EOL" tag on 2.0 that
may be considered as lack of support by some corporate users using (old)
maven releases


2009/6/30 Christian Gruber <christianedwardgruber@...>

> No arguments with that statement.
>
> Christian.
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>  That's all fine, I'm just saying that 2.0.10 has been out for a while
>> now without any serious show stoppers that I'm aware of. 2.0.9 and
>> 2.0.10 are very stable, I would rather see effort spent on the 2.2.x
>> line instead.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Christian
>> Gruber<christianedwardgruber@...> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to Nicholas' assessment.  Too many firms I've worked with won't be
>>> changing to 2.1/2.2 until it's been in production release for several
>>> months, and probably won't trust it.  They'll need critical bug support
>>> on
>>> 2.0.  We just need a window for migration, that's all.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>> On Jun 30, 2009, at 9:52 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
>>>
>>>  Brett Porter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> - remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch -
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> - promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all
>>>> bugfix
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> work towards 2.2.x
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> - a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> committed there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> non binding -1 : The 2.0 user base is still large, most of them just
>>>> don't
>>>> yet use the latest 2.0.10. We could just promote 2.2.x as the latest
>>>> stable
>>>> release BUT still consider a critical bug-fix branch for 2.0.x
>>>>
>>>> 2009/6/30 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@...>
>>>>
>>>>  Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch
>>>>> release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being
>>>>> conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an
>>>>> organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1 from
>>>>> 2.0? JIRA notes are for the "geeks" but a general summary would be
>>>>> worthwhile.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van Zyl<jvanzyl@...>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I
>>>>>>> feel like it's EOL now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x
>>>>>> line
>>>>>> because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and users
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> will
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many
>>>>>> inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> happened
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line will
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> still
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> be in widespread use for the next year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porter<brett@...>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no
>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> whether to merge to it or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Brett
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Hmm...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> 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@...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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@...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Christian Edward Gruber
>>> christianedwardgruber@...
>>> http://www.geekinasuit.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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@...
>>
>>
> Christian Edward Gruber
> christianedwardgruber@...
> http://www.geekinasuit.com/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

[John Casey-5]

I'll write this up in the site docs, but for now I'll explain here:

There are a couple of reasons for moving 2.1 => 2.2 directly. First,
we've moved to a requirement on JDK 1.5. While we had decided to do this
for 2.1.0, we never enforced it or changed the Maven binaries
themselves. To keep from surprising users of 2.1.0 with an abrupt JDK
upgrade requirement in 2.1.1, we're just moving to 2.2.0.

The other reasons a probably a little more, well, gray. First, we've
removed support for version-expression resolution in the POM on
install/deploy. You can see MNG-4223 for more discussion on this and a
link to a more in-depth exploration of the issue. Also, we've introduced
some new default execution IDs for configuring goals that are bound to
the lifecycle via package mappings, and for goals executed directly from
the command line. These new executionIds represent some new assumptions
made by Maven, and conceivably could produce collisions with existing
executionIds for users. You can see MNG-3401 and MNG-3203 for more
discussion and links to documentation that will eventually land on the
Maven website.

While I understand your hesitation to move to a 2.2.0-type release, this
isn't exactly the same as a 2.0 release. Sure, there are major changes
here, but the fact is 2.1.0 was our most tested, scrutinized release to
date, and 2.2.0 builds on the two or three problems that appeared in
that release. Obviously it's up to you, but I'd highly recommend using
2.2.0.

-john

Paul Benedict wrote:

> Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch
> release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being
> conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an
> organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release.
>
> Will anyone yet document justification for upgrading to 2.2/2.1 from
> 2.0? JIRA notes are for the "geeks" but a general summary would be
> worthwhile.
>
> I disagree with deleting branches. I think that's extreme.
>
> Paul
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jason van Zyl<jvanzyl@...> wrote:
>> On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I
>>> feel like it's EOL now.
>>>
>> I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x line
>> because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and users will
>> probably let those bake awhile. I think there are still too many
>> inconsistencies between the lines and change between minor versions happened
>> a little too quickly for people to absorb. I think the 2.0.x line will still
>> be in widespread use for the next year.
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Brett Porter<brett@...> wrote:
>>>> Just a matter of clarity. If its not there, there will be no question
>>>> about
>>>> whether to merge to it or not.
>>>>
>>>> - Brett
>>>>
>>>> On 30/06/2009, at 4:12 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hmm...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - declare 2.0.x EOL after that release and delete the branch
>>>>> What harm is there in keeping it around? Even if you never return to
>>>>> it, it doesn't cost you anything to keep it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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@...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
>> http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.
>>
>>  -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[brettporter]

On 01/07/2009, at 1:47 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:

> I'm also fine with this, just would like to avoid some "EOL" tag on  
> 2.0 that
> may be considered as lack of support by some corporate users using  
> (old)
> maven releases

Sure, we can use a different name. All I meant EOL to mean here was  
that we don't plan to make any more releases (unless something is  
found to be really, horribly, wrong). EOD (end of development) is  
probably more appropriate.

It'd still be "supported" (in our case, I think that means accepting  
bugreps against 2.0.x) for some time yet.

- Brett


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[BRIAN FOX-5]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Brett Porter<brett@...> wrote:

>
>
> On 01/07/2009, at 1:47 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
>
>> I'm also fine with this, just would like to avoid some "EOL" tag on 2.0
>> that
>> may be considered as lack of support by some corporate users using (old)
>> maven releases
>
> Sure, we can use a different name. All I meant EOL to mean here was that we
> don't plan to make any more releases (unless something is found to be
> really, horribly, wrong). EOD (end of development) is probably more
> appropriate.
>

Exactly, and IMO, we're at that point today with 2.0.10

> It'd still be "supported" (in our case, I think that means accepting bugreps
> against 2.0.x) for some time yet.
>
> - Brett
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[brettporter]

On 01/07/2009, at 6:01 AM, Brian Fox wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Brett Porter<brett@...>  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/07/2009, at 1:47 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
>>
>>> I'm also fine with this, just would like to avoid some "EOL" tag  
>>> on 2.0
>>> that
>>> may be considered as lack of support by some corporate users using  
>>> (old)
>>> maven releases
>>
>> Sure, we can use a different name. All I meant EOL to mean here was  
>> that we
>> don't plan to make any more releases (unless something is found to be
>> really, horribly, wrong). EOD (end of development) is probably more
>> appropriate.
>>
>
> Exactly, and IMO, we're at that point today with 2.0.10

Ok, but are you leaning towards a -0 or a -1 on a 2.0.11 release?

I'm happy to burn the small amount of my time on it and clean up the  
release process along the way (given the issues we had with 2.2.0).

I'm not looking to add any more changes, just release the 37 already  
merged in there so we have a proper end point. It should be a short  
cycle since it's stuff already in 2.1.0+, but there were a couple of  
critical ones (eg, POM plugin ordering regression) that are worth  
having IMO.

Cheers,
Brett


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...