You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> on 2009/06/29 02:16:05 UTC
proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
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@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
+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@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
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<jv...@sonatype.com> 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<br...@apache.org> 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@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>> 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@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
I'm -0 on the 2.0.11 release.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Brett Porter<br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2009, at 6:01 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Brett Porter<br...@apache.org> 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@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 01/07/2009, at 6:01 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Brett Porter<br...@apache.org>
> 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@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Brett Porter<br...@apache.org> 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@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
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@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by nicolas de loof <ni...@gmail.com>.
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 <ch...@gmail.com>
> 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<ch...@gmail.com> 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 <pb...@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> 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<jv...@sonatype.com>
>>>>> 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<br...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> 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@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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@maven.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Christian Edward Gruber
>>> christianedwardgruber@gmail.com
>>> http://www.geekinasuit.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
> Christian Edward Gruber
> christianedwardgruber@gmail.com
> http://www.geekinasuit.com/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Christian Gruber <ch...@gmail.com>.
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<ch...@gmail.com> 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 <pb...@apache.org>
>>>
>>>> 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<jv...@sonatype.com>
>>>> 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<br...@apache.org>
>>>>>> 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@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Christian Edward Gruber
>> christianedwardgruber@gmail.com
>> http://www.geekinasuit.com/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Christian Edward Gruber
christianedwardgruber@gmail.com
http://www.geekinasuit.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
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<ch...@gmail.com> 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 <pb...@apache.org>
>>
>>> 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<jv...@sonatype.com>
>>> 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<br...@apache.org> 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@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>
> Christian Edward Gruber
> christianedwardgruber@gmail.com
> http://www.geekinasuit.com/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Christian Gruber <ch...@gmail.com>.
+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 <pb...@apache.org>
>
>> 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<jv...@sonatype.com>
>> 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<br...@apache.org>
>>>> 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@maven.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
Christian Edward Gruber
christianedwardgruber@gmail.com
http://www.geekinasuit.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by nicolas de loof <ni...@gmail.com>.
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 <pb...@apache.org>
> 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<jv...@sonatype.com>
> 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<br...@apache.org> 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@maven.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > 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@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
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<jv...@sonatype.com> 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<br...@apache.org> 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@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> 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@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@sonatype.com>.
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<br...@apache.org> 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@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
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@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
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@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de>.
Christian Schulte wrote:
> Paul Benedict schrieb:
>> My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The
>> remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in
>> 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it.
>>
>> - Paul
>>
>
> +1
>
> 2.0.x is the last JDK 1.4 release. Users of the GPG plugin simply cannot
> use 2.1.x.
No. 2.1.x is also JDK 1.4. That was the whole point for starting 2.2.x.
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
Jason, I apologize for misspeaking. I meant what Brian said: the
"affected" version should stay the same. It's okay to remove the "Fix"
for version which was altered to 2.2.1
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Brett Porter<br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 02/07/2009, at 4:06 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> On 1-Jul-09, at 10:52 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>
>>> It's logical to believe that 2.1 and 2.2 contain almost all the
>>> unresolved bugs of 2.0.x. Since 2.0.x is no longer being supported,
>>> there's no good reason to keep them attached to that version. You only
>>> want to backport the issues that will get fixing -- not potential
>>> fixes UNLESS the issue is exclusively a 2.0.x issue.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately this may not be the case because the code bases are now
>> pretty different. My only concern is that the 2.0.x line becomes the ugly
>> stepchild meanwhile this is where the vast majority of our users live.
>
> Ok, even so - I think there was some agreement that we wouldn't explicitly
> plan for a 2.0.12+ release, which was the motivation for the change I made.
> If, in the process of fixing an issue, the committer decides it really
> should be backported to 2.0.x that's still a possibility (or if someone else
> comes along and requests it).
>
> But I get the feeling that those sticking to 2.0.x are "happy" - in that
> they've got things working the way they want and probably won't jump up to
> further 2.0.x releases, let along 2.2.x. If we put out a 2.0.11 release and
> say "this is the last, barring critical issues - start looking at 2.2",
> we'll fairly soon hear about it if that's not what users want.
>
> At the same time, if we do start pushing fixes into 2.2.x, that gives more
> people incentive to try it, and help us identify if there are further
> barriers to moving across, in addition to continuing to build out more
> integration test cases that benefit us across the board.
>
> - Brett
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Christian Gruber <ch...@gmail.com>.
As a user... +1
On Jul 1, 2009, at 3:41 PM, John Casey wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
>> But I get the feeling that those sticking to 2.0.x are "happy" - in
>> that they've got things working the way they want and probably
>> won't jump up to further 2.0.x releases, let along 2.2.x. If we put
>> out a 2.0.11 release and say "this is the last, barring critical
>> issues - start looking at 2.2", we'll fairly soon hear about it if
>> that's not what users want.
>> At the same time, if we do start pushing fixes into 2.2.x, that
>> gives more people incentive to try it, and help us identify if
>> there are further barriers to moving across, in addition to
>> continuing to build out more integration test cases that benefit us
>> across the board.
>> - Brett
>
> Personally, I think this makes a lot of sense. I think we shouldn't
> go out of our way to freak out our user base, but at the same time
> we shouldn't spend too much time pushing the envelope with 2.0.x now
> that we've decided to move on. If we announce that we're doing
> critical fixes only on 2.0.x - and not spending time "cleaning up"
> - then people who have a problem with this should become visible.
> It's a good way to engage with our community to figure out why
> people won't make the jump, IMO.
>
> If it's just about an arbitrary version number, I'm not sure how to
> reassure those people without making a largely symbolic 2.2.1 release.
>
> -john
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Christian Edward Gruber
christianedwardgruber@gmail.com
http://www.geekinasuit.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
Brett Porter wrote:
>
> But I get the feeling that those sticking to 2.0.x are "happy" - in that
> they've got things working the way they want and probably won't jump up
> to further 2.0.x releases, let along 2.2.x. If we put out a 2.0.11
> release and say "this is the last, barring critical issues - start
> looking at 2.2", we'll fairly soon hear about it if that's not what
> users want.
>
> At the same time, if we do start pushing fixes into 2.2.x, that gives
> more people incentive to try it, and help us identify if there are
> further barriers to moving across, in addition to continuing to build
> out more integration test cases that benefit us across the board.
>
> - Brett
Personally, I think this makes a lot of sense. I think we shouldn't go
out of our way to freak out our user base, but at the same time we
shouldn't spend too much time pushing the envelope with 2.0.x now that
we've decided to move on. If we announce that we're doing critical fixes
only on 2.0.x - and not spending time "cleaning up" - then people who
have a problem with this should become visible. It's a good way to
engage with our community to figure out why people won't make the jump, IMO.
If it's just about an arbitrary version number, I'm not sure how to
reassure those people without making a largely symbolic 2.2.1 release.
-john
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 02/07/2009, at 4:06 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On 1-Jul-09, at 10:52 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>
>> It's logical to believe that 2.1 and 2.2 contain almost all the
>> unresolved bugs of 2.0.x. Since 2.0.x is no longer being supported,
>> there's no good reason to keep them attached to that version. You
>> only
>> want to backport the issues that will get fixing -- not potential
>> fixes UNLESS the issue is exclusively a 2.0.x issue.
>>
>
> Unfortunately this may not be the case because the code bases are
> now pretty different. My only concern is that the 2.0.x line becomes
> the ugly stepchild meanwhile this is where the vast majority of our
> users live.
Ok, even so - I think there was some agreement that we wouldn't
explicitly plan for a 2.0.12+ release, which was the motivation for
the change I made. If, in the process of fixing an issue, the
committer decides it really should be backported to 2.0.x that's still
a possibility (or if someone else comes along and requests it).
But I get the feeling that those sticking to 2.0.x are "happy" - in
that they've got things working the way they want and probably won't
jump up to further 2.0.x releases, let along 2.2.x. If we put out a
2.0.11 release and say "this is the last, barring critical issues -
start looking at 2.2", we'll fairly soon hear about it if that's not
what users want.
At the same time, if we do start pushing fixes into 2.2.x, that gives
more people incentive to try it, and help us identify if there are
further barriers to moving across, in addition to continuing to build
out more integration test cases that benefit us across the board.
- Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@sonatype.com>.
On 1-Jul-09, at 10:52 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> It's logical to believe that 2.1 and 2.2 contain almost all the
> unresolved bugs of 2.0.x. Since 2.0.x is no longer being supported,
> there's no good reason to keep them attached to that version. You only
> want to backport the issues that will get fixing -- not potential
> fixes UNLESS the issue is exclusively a 2.0.x issue.
>
Unfortunately this may not be the case because the code bases are now
pretty different. My only concern is that the 2.0.x line becomes the
ugly stepchild meanwhile this is where the vast majority of our users
live.
> -- Paul
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Jason van Zyl<jv...@sonatype.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You need to leave the bugs raised against 2.0.x because there is no
>> way
>> around the fact that 2.0.x is going to be the dominant version used
>> for
>> quite some time. We can't just stop bug fixing the 2.0.x line. If
>> you moved
>> them all how are you going to know what applies?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
It's logical to believe that 2.1 and 2.2 contain almost all the
unresolved bugs of 2.0.x. Since 2.0.x is no longer being supported,
there's no good reason to keep them attached to that version. You only
want to backport the issues that will get fixing -- not potential
fixes UNLESS the issue is exclusively a 2.0.x issue.
-- Paul
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Jason van Zyl<jv...@sonatype.com> wrote:
> You need to leave the bugs raised against 2.0.x because there is no way
> around the fact that 2.0.x is going to be the dominant version used for
> quite some time. We can't just stop bug fixing the 2.0.x line. If you moved
> them all how are you going to know what applies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 02/07/2009, at 3:38 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On 1-Jul-09, at 9:47 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> Ok, for starters I've moved all the open issues from 2.0.11 to
>> 2.2.1 and am now going through them to cull them down where possible.
>>
>
> You need to leave the bugs raised against 2.0.x because there is no
> way around the fact that 2.0.x is going to be the dominant version
> used for quite some time. We can't just stop bug fixing the 2.0.x
> line. If you moved them all how are you going to know what applies?
There weren't any changes to the "affects" version.
- Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@sonatype.com>.
On 1-Jul-09, at 9:47 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
> Ok, for starters I've moved all the open issues from 2.0.11 to 2.2.1
> and am now going through them to cull them down where possible.
>
You need to leave the bugs raised against 2.0.x because there is no
way around the fact that 2.0.x is going to be the dominant version
used for quite some time. We can't just stop bug fixing the 2.0.x
line. If you moved them all how are you going to know what applies?
> I've also confirmed that the ITs pass for 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT as it is.
>
> Once I get the 2.1.x bits cleaned up (per original mail that
> everyone seems in favour of), I'll spin an RC and see what everyone
> thinks.
>
> - Brett
>
> On 02/07/2009, at 1:46 AM, John Casey wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Paul Benedict wrote:
>>> My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed).
>>> The
>>> remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in
>>> 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it.
>>> - Paul
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jörg
>>> Schaible<jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>> The point is, in 6 months nobody knows axaclty anymore what is in
>>>> 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT. That will actually stop any bugfix release ever.
>>>>
>>>> - Jörg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
----------------------------------------------------------
First, the taking in of scattered particulars under one Idea,
so that everyone understands what is being talked about ... Second,
the separation of the Idea into parts, by dividing it at the joints,
as nature directs, not breaking any limb in half as a bad carver might.
-- Plato, Phaedrus (Notes on the Synthesis of Form by C. Alexander)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Ok, for starters I've moved all the open issues from 2.0.11 to 2.2.1
and am now going through them to cull them down where possible.
I've also confirmed that the ITs pass for 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT as it is.
Once I get the 2.1.x bits cleaned up (per original mail that everyone
seems in favour of), I'll spin an RC and see what everyone thinks.
- Brett
On 02/07/2009, at 1:46 AM, John Casey wrote:
> +1
>
> Paul Benedict wrote:
>> My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed).
>> The
>> remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in
>> 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it.
>> - Paul
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jörg
>> Schaible<jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> The point is, in 6 months nobody knows axaclty anymore what is in
>>> 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT. That will actually stop any bugfix release ever.
>>>
>>> - Jörg
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
+1
Paul Benedict wrote:
> My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The
> remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in
> 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it.
>
> - Paul
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jörg Schaible<jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 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.
>> The point is, in 6 months nobody knows axaclty anymore what is in
>> 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT. That will actually stop any bugfix release ever.
>>
>> - Jörg
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
FYI, you can still build 1.4 projects safely in Maven 2.2.0:
http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-building-jdk14-on-jdk15.html
-john
Christian Schulte wrote:
> Paul Benedict schrieb:
>> My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The
>> remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in
>> 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it.
>>
>> - Paul
>>
>
> +1
>
> 2.0.x is the last JDK 1.4 release. Users of the GPG plugin simply cannot
> use 2.1.x.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Christian Schulte <cs...@schulte.it>.
Paul Benedict schrieb:
> My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The
> remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in
> 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it.
>
> - Paul
>
+1
2.0.x is the last JDK 1.4 release. Users of the GPG plugin simply cannot
use 2.1.x.
--
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The
remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in
2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it.
- Paul
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jörg Schaible<jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.
>
> The point is, in 6 months nobody knows axaclty anymore what is in
> 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT. That will actually stop any bugfix release ever.
>
> - Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de>.
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.
The point is, in 6 months nobody knows axaclty anymore what is in
2.0.11-SNAPSHOT. That will actually stop any bugfix release ever.
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
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<br...@apache.org> 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@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
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@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Arnaud HERITIER <ah...@gmail.com>.
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 <pb...@apache.org> 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@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
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@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Arnaud HERITIER <ah...@gmail.com>.
+4 also
Cheers,
Arnaud
# Arnaud Héritier
# http://blog.aheritier.net
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Benjamin Bentmann <
benjamin.bentmann@udo.edu> 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@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: proposal for cleaning up 2.x series releases / trees
Posted by Benjamin Bentmann <be...@udo.edu>.
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@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org