I've renamed the current RC to 2.1.0-M1-RC12-SNAPSHOT, for this reason.
If we can put together a plan for the GA release of 2.1.0, I'd prefer to
have that in place before we do a final release from this RC branch.
Preferably something we can achieve in the next <2 months given current
resource
+1
Arnaud
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like just about every bit of this proposal. So a big +1 from me.
>
> John Casey wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we put together a plan for the next few
> > releases of Maven, and also a plan
I like just about every bit of this proposal. So a big +1 from me.
John Casey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose that we put together a plan for the next few
> releases of Maven, and also a plan for what we're going to call them.
> There has been quite a bit of discussion here, on IRC, and in t
+1 :)
On 26/08/2008, at 1:57 PM, John Casey wrote:
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 t
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 p
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
I'm good with making 2.0.10-RC the head of 2.1.x. I guess I'd like to
see some sort of process on 2.1 where enhancements that aren't
necessarily 100% compatible can be added so some things can be changed
before the branch is considered completely stable. By releasing 2.1.0 I
think we'd be giv
I am okay with making 2.0.10 -> 2.1.0 too, but I do have to ask is
everyone up to maintaining 3 code streams (3.0, 2.0, 2.1)? In terms of
software design, the branching makes alot of sense, but due to the
amount of Critical and Blocker bugs that go into each 2.0.x release, I
don't know if that's th
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 w
Why not use JIRA voting as a mechanism, officially. Or at least as a
weighting factor.
Christian.
On 25-Aug-08, at 16:44 , John Casey wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to propose that we put together a plan for the next few
releases of Maven, and also a plan for what we're going to call
them. There
Hi,
I'd like to propose that we put together a plan for the next few
releases of Maven, and also a plan for what we're going to call them.
There has been quite a bit of discussion here, on IRC, and in the back
channels about how to structure this, so let's see if we can reach a
consensus.
T
11 matches
Mail list logo
