You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de> on 2013/05/07 14:08:50 UTC
preparing 2.6.1
Hi everybody,
With 2.4.4 on its way, I plan to start the release process for 2.6.1
soonish.
The changes from 2.6 are listed over here:
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12324035&styleName=Text&projectId=10591&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED|7a7ef725f07040a77243e520ec8e8c5a1f74f2a5|lout>
If somebody feels that something is missing over there, that something
else needs to be backported, and can think of another problem for not
cutting a release right now, please speak up.
Best regards, Julian
Re: preparing 2.6.1
Posted by Cédric Damioli <cd...@apache.org>.
Le 07/05/2013 15:43, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> In general a big +1 to cutting 2.6.1. There are already 34 issues with
> changes waiting to be released from the 2.6 branch. That's quite a lot
> for a patch release, so the sooner we cut the release the better.
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-07 15:22, Cédric Damioli wrote:
>>> I'd like to see [1] backported in 2.6.1, but I'm wondering if this has
>>> been enough tested in 2.7, if at all.
>>> Or do you think it's too much for just a patch release ?
>> No opinion on that. Jukka maybe?
> 2.6.1 already contains quite a few non-bugfix changes with non-trivial
> risk for regressions (looks like we should be a bit more conservative
> here), so I'd be a bit hesitant to add too many new changes there.
>
> How about we cut 2.6.1 now and follow up with 2.6.2 like a week after
> that? That way we can limit the number of changes in individual patch
> releases and allow people to more easily backtrack if problems do come
> up.
I'm fine with that. We may even wait a little more than only one week :)
Regards,
Cédric
Re: preparing 2.6.1
Posted by Cédric Damioli <ce...@damioli.fr>.
Le 07/05/2013 15:43, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> In general a big +1 to cutting 2.6.1. There are already 34 issues with
> changes waiting to be released from the 2.6 branch. That's quite a lot
> for a patch release, so the sooner we cut the release the better.
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-07 15:22, Cédric Damioli wrote:
>>> I'd like to see [1] backported in 2.6.1, but I'm wondering if this has
>>> been enough tested in 2.7, if at all.
>>> Or do you think it's too much for just a patch release ?
>> No opinion on that. Jukka maybe?
> 2.6.1 already contains quite a few non-bugfix changes with non-trivial
> risk for regressions (looks like we should be a bit more conservative
> here), so I'd be a bit hesitant to add too many new changes there.
>
> How about we cut 2.6.1 now and follow up with 2.6.2 like a week after
> that? That way we can limit the number of changes in individual patch
> releases and allow people to more easily backtrack if problems do come
> up.
I'm fine with that. We may even wait a little more than only one week :)
Regards,
Cédric
Re: preparing 2.6.1
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
In general a big +1 to cutting 2.6.1. There are already 34 issues with
changes waiting to be released from the 2.6 branch. That's quite a lot
for a patch release, so the sooner we cut the release the better.
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2013-05-07 15:22, Cédric Damioli wrote:
>> I'd like to see [1] backported in 2.6.1, but I'm wondering if this has
>> been enough tested in 2.7, if at all.
>> Or do you think it's too much for just a patch release ?
>
> No opinion on that. Jukka maybe?
2.6.1 already contains quite a few non-bugfix changes with non-trivial
risk for regressions (looks like we should be a bit more conservative
here), so I'd be a bit hesitant to add too many new changes there.
How about we cut 2.6.1 now and follow up with 2.6.2 like a week after
that? That way we can limit the number of changes in individual patch
releases and allow people to more easily backtrack if problems do come
up.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: preparing 2.6.1
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2013-05-07 15:22, Cédric Damioli wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> I'd like to see [1] backported in 2.6.1, but I'm wondering if this has
> been enough tested in 2.7, if at all.
> Or do you think it's too much for just a patch release ?
>
> Regards,
> Cédric
> ...
No opinion on that. Jukka maybe?
Best regards, Julian
Re: preparing 2.6.1
Posted by Cédric Damioli <cd...@apache.org>.
Hi Julian,
I'd like to see [1] backported in 2.6.1, but I'm wondering if this has
been enough tested in 2.7, if at all.
Or do you think it's too much for just a patch release ?
Regards,
Cédric
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3402
Le 07/05/2013 14:08, Julian Reschke a écrit :
> Hi everybody,
>
> With 2.4.4 on its way, I plan to start the release process for 2.6.1
> soonish.
>
> The changes from 2.6 are listed over here:
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12324035&styleName=Text&projectId=10591&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED|7a7ef725f07040a77243e520ec8e8c5a1f74f2a5|lout>
>
> If somebody feels that something is missing over there, that something
> else needs to be backported, and can think of another problem for not
> cutting a release right now, please speak up.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
> --
> Cédric Damioli
> Ametys CMS
> http://www.ametys.org
> http://www.anyware-services.com