You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mina.apache.org by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com> on 2010/01/09 14:58:20 UTC
RC1, RC2, etc
I was talking to someone about Mina and he thought that it was odd
that 2.0 was out for so long under RC*. To my mind, I agree.
Usually, in my experience, release candidates are time boxed pre-
releases that allow people to coordinate specific testing before the
real release.
Can someone explain the rational for RC*? Just curious.
Regards,
Alan
Re: RC1, RC2, etc
Posted by Emmanuel Lcharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>
> On Jan 10, 2010, at 5:50 AM, Emmanuel LŽcharny wrote:
>
>> Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Jan 9, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>>>>> Cool. I think we should rename 2.0.0-RC2 to 2.0.0 to better
>>>>> communicate that intention. WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> Well, until we have a stable version (I mean, no serious bug), I
>>>> would keep RC*. Then we can switch to 2.0.0-GA ot 2.0.0.
>>>
>>> What's the point in releasing a version of MINA that is so badly
>>> unstable that we must release it under RC2, RC3, RC4, etc.?
>> I never said 'so badly unstable'. I said, we need to have a stable
>> version which has been proved bug free for a certain time at least
>> before switching to a GA. So far, we can't anticipate bugs, as we
>> don't think we intoduce bugs when we write code !
>>
>>
>> We certainly don't want to wait 4 years before going for a GA, but
>> considering the serious issues we found in RC1, we may want to be
>> sure that RC2 is used and tested by as many users as possible before
>> we can consider it as a GA.
>>
>> OTOH, we can also release a 2.0 and switch to 2.0.1 as soon as we fix
>> bugs.
>
> That's what I was thinking. People understand that the first release
> of any version will tend to be a bit flakey; only the Pope and my
> mother-in-law are infallible. :) We remedy that by quickly releasing
> patches, 2.0.x. Releasing an RC will not attract people to start
> using it. Slow lumbering RC releases gives the impression that the
> community has stalled.
Maybe. As a community, it's just a matter of what we decide to do here.
And I don't think that the pope is infallible : remember Gallileo. Now,
when it comes to your mother-in-law, that's a different story !
>
>> IMHO, it's all about the message we send to our users. People tend to
>> think that RC are unstable by essence, we tend to think that we are
>> simply cautious. If the GA is buggy, then it's the opposite : users
>> think we are lazzy, and we think that it does not matter, we just
>> have to provide a new bug fix release.
>>
>> There is no way we can catch two birds with a single stone ...
>
> Yep, and that's why I was thinking that Mina should follow the
> standard convention of tight RC releases that span a few weeks
> followed by a real release w/ many micro patch releases. The nice
> thing about patch releases is that it reveals to outsiders that the
> community is active and vibrant.
>
> Just my 2 cents...
What about a vote ? Something like : no RC, just plain release, with as
many releases as necessary, assuming that we will always have bugs, and
that plain release is more likely to be used and proven stable than a RC...
AW: RC1, RC2, etc
Posted by Steve Ulrich <st...@proemion.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:list@toolazydogs.com] wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 2010, at 5:50 AM, Emmanuel LŽcharny wrote:
>
> > OTOH, we can also release a 2.0 and switch to 2.0.1 as soon as we
> > fix bugs.
>
> That's what I was thinking. People understand that the first release
> of any version will tend to be a bit flakey; only the Pope and my
> mother-in-law are infallible. :) We remedy that by quickly releasing
> patches, 2.0.x. Releasing an RC will not attract people to start
> using it. Slow lumbering RC releases gives the impression that the
> community has stalled.
I don't think the RC-phase is too long. Just consider how long the subversion
project stays in RC. Their motto is "When we ever loose data in a final release,
our reputation is gone and we can quit the project".
MINA ist used in similar important places, so you should be aware what a
possible showstopper in a final can do to the reputation and acceptance of the
project!
> > IMHO, it's all about the message we send to our users. People tend
> > to think that RC are unstable by essence, we tend to think that we
> > are simply cautious. If the GA is buggy, then it's the opposite :
> > users think we are lazzy, and we think that it does not matter, we
> > just have to provide a new bug fix release.
Since the "users" are developers itself, they should be aware that an RC is a
nearly-complete-but-there-may-be-problems-release.
> > There is no way we can catch two birds with a single stone ...
>
> Yep, and that's why I was thinking that Mina should follow the
> standard convention of tight RC releases that span a few weeks
> followed by a real release w/ many micro patch releases. The nice
> thing about patch releases is that it reveals to outsiders that the
> community is active and vibrant.
Maybe there should be a regular RC-release to signal "we are working on it".
> Just my 2 cents...
and another 2 of mine
/Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROEMION GmbH
Steve Ulrich
IT Development (IT/DEV)
Donaustrasse 14
D-36043 Fulda, Germany
Phone +49 (0) 661 9490-601
Fax +49 (0) 661 9490-333
http://www.proemion.com/
mailto:steve.ulrich@proemion.com
Geschäftsführer: Dipl. Ing. Robert Michaelides
Amtsgericht-Registergericht-Fulda: 5 HRB 1867
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail and any attachments may be confidential. If you have received this E-mail and you are not a named addressee, please inform the sender immediately by E-mail and then delete this E-mail from your system. If you are not a named addressee, you may not use, disclose, distribute, copy or print this E-mail. Addressees should scan this E-mail and any attachments for viruses. No representation or warranty is made as to the absence of viruses in this E-mail or any of its attachments.
AKTUELLES
http://www.rmcan.de/
NEWS
http://www.rmcan.com/
Re: RC1, RC2, etc
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Jan 10, 2010, at 5:50 AM, Emmanuel Lcharny wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>
>>> Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>>>> Cool. I think we should rename 2.0.0-RC2 to 2.0.0 to better
>>>> communicate that intention. WDYT?
>>>
>>> Well, until we have a stable version (I mean, no serious bug), I
>>> would keep RC*. Then we can switch to 2.0.0-GA ot 2.0.0.
>>
>> What's the point in releasing a version of MINA that is so badly
>> unstable that we must release it under RC2, RC3, RC4, etc.?
> I never said 'so badly unstable'. I said, we need to have a stable
> version which has been proved bug free for a certain time at least
> before switching to a GA. So far, we can't anticipate bugs, as we
> don't think we intoduce bugs when we write code !
>
>
> We certainly don't want to wait 4 years before going for a GA, but
> considering the serious issues we found in RC1, we may want to be
> sure that RC2 is used and tested by as many users as possible before
> we can consider it as a GA.
>
> OTOH, we can also release a 2.0 and switch to 2.0.1 as soon as we
> fix bugs.
That's what I was thinking. People understand that the first release
of any version will tend to be a bit flakey; only the Pope and my
mother-in-law are infallible. :) We remedy that by quickly releasing
patches, 2.0.x. Releasing an RC will not attract people to start
using it. Slow lumbering RC releases gives the impression that the
community has stalled.
> IMHO, it's all about the message we send to our users. People tend
> to think that RC are unstable by essence, we tend to think that we
> are simply cautious. If the GA is buggy, then it's the opposite :
> users think we are lazzy, and we think that it does not matter, we
> just have to provide a new bug fix release.
>
> There is no way we can catch two birds with a single stone ...
Yep, and that's why I was thinking that Mina should follow the
standard convention of tight RC releases that span a few weeks
followed by a real release w/ many micro patch releases. The nice
thing about patch releases is that it reveals to outsiders that the
community is active and vibrant.
Just my 2 cents...
Regards,
Alan
Re: RC1, RC2, etc
Posted by Emmanuel Lcharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>
> On Jan 9, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>
>> Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>>> Cool. I think we should rename 2.0.0-RC2 to 2.0.0 to better
>>> communicate that intention. WDYT?
>>
>> Well, until we have a stable version (I mean, no serious bug), I
>> would keep RC*. Then we can switch to 2.0.0-GA ot 2.0.0.
>
> What's the point in releasing a version of MINA that is so badly
> unstable that we must release it under RC2, RC3, RC4, etc.?
I never said 'so badly unstable'. I said, we need to have a stable
version which has been proved bug free for a certain time at least
before switching to a GA. So far, we can't anticipate bugs, as we don't
think we intoduce bugs when we write code !
We certainly don't want to wait 4 years before going for a GA, but
considering the serious issues we found in RC1, we may want to be sure
that RC2 is used and tested by as many users as possible before we can
consider it as a GA.
OTOH, we can also release a 2.0 and switch to 2.0.1 as soon as we fix bugs.
IMHO, it's all about the message we send to our users. People tend to
think that RC are unstable by essence, we tend to think that we are
simply cautious. If the GA is buggy, then it's the opposite : users
think we are lazzy, and we think that it does not matter, we just have
to provide a new bug fix release.
There is no way we can catch two birds with a single stone ...
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
Re: RC1, RC2, etc
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Jan 9, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>> Cool. I think we should rename 2.0.0-RC2 to 2.0.0 to better
>> communicate that intention. WDYT?
>
> Well, until we have a stable version (I mean, no serious bug), I
> would keep RC*. Then we can switch to 2.0.0-GA ot 2.0.0.
What's the point in releasing a version of MINA that is so badly
unstable that we must release it under RC2, RC3, RC4, etc.?
Regards,
Alan
Re: RC1, RC2, etc
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
> Cool. I think we should rename 2.0.0-RC2 to 2.0.0 to better
> communicate that intention. WDYT?
Well, until we have a stable version (I mean, no serious bug), I would
keep RC*. Then we can switch to 2.0.0-GA ot 2.0.0.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com
Re: RC1, RC2, etc
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Cool. I think we should rename 2.0.0-RC2 to 2.0.0 to better
communicate that intention. WDYT?
Regards,
Alan
On Jan 9, 2010, at 6:01 AM, Ashish wrote:
> The understanding is correct :-)
>
> We are just few steps away from GA, pending some bugs to be fixed
> without which we can't release GA.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
> <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>> I was talking to someone about Mina and he thought that it was odd
>> that 2.0
>> was out for so long under RC*. To my mind, I agree. Usually, in my
>> experience, release candidates are time boxed pre-releases that
>> allow people
>> to coordinate specific testing before the real release.
>>
>> Can someone explain the rational for RC*? Just curious.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> thanks
> ashish
>
> Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
Re: RC1, RC2, etc
Posted by Ashish <pa...@gmail.com>.
The understanding is correct :-)
We are just few steps away from GA, pending some bugs to be fixed
without which we can't release GA.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> I was talking to someone about Mina and he thought that it was odd that 2.0
> was out for so long under RC*. To my mind, I agree. Usually, in my
> experience, release candidates are time boxed pre-releases that allow people
> to coordinate specific testing before the real release.
>
> Can someone explain the rational for RC*? Just curious.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
--
thanks
ashish
Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal