You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-dev@logging.apache.org by Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> on 2014/09/22 18:01:27 UTC
Towards a 2.1 release
Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1 release
(and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
When are we aiming to do this release?
There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
I think it is a matter of confidence.
The API module is solid.
If something outside of the API needs fixing, we can do so quickly without
worrying about being handcuffed by BC.
Since I am not the RM I would suggest a beta this week and 2.1 within 1
week after. Folks that are paying attention will play with the beta, others
that are not can get 2.1.
A 2.1 w/o a beta would be OK by me for the non-handcuffed reasons stated
above.
If at some later point, lots of 3rd parties end up relying on a stable Core
module, we can worry about marking what is really public in Core vs. not.
Gary
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1 release
> (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>
> When are we aiming to do this release?
>
> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
I updated a couple in that list that I assigned to myself. There's an issue
by Gary that looks to be fixed already that he can probably close.
On 24 September 2014 11:45, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For my money, move them all to 2.2.
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Are there any issues in the list of open 2.1 items
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20LOG4J2%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC>
>> we would want to address for 2.1?
>>
>> Or should these all be moved to 2.2?
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That's why I thought calling it a "candidate" release made that
>>> distinction. Plus, Alpha, Beta, Candidate release. Going ABC like that
>>> makes suffixes like Final or Release both come next, though that's not an
>>> issue here.
>>>
>>> On 23 September 2014 16:30, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you do a release that release has to be voted on - which makes it
>>>> a release “candidate”. If it is not approved than the candidate fails, you
>>>> fix whatever problems there were and move on to the next candidate. In
>>>> short, it is something that is just part of the release process for a
>>>> specific release. It doesn’t really belong in the artifact id and/or
>>>> version. It may need to be represented in the source repository, but that
>>>> is difficult to do with Maven.
>>>>
>>>> The notion of Alpha or Beta denotes the expected stability of the
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Confusing! What's wrong with Alpha, Beta and Release? A release
>>>> candidate is our internal bits before it gets to A, B, or R.
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we can call the "release candidate" a "candidate release", while
>>>>> the traditional RC is still an RC. So in this case, we do CRs for the
>>>>> official release (which I believe was how you suggested naming tags).
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 September 2014 11:40, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A beta release is exactly the same as a “regular” release. Just
>>>>>> change the version in the pom to 2.1-beta1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for getting multiple versions on the site, other projects do that.
>>>>>> Maven does it for older versions. It should just be a matter of copying
>>>>>> the template they use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO the only reason to do a beta is if their are new features that we
>>>>>> consider to be not-quite-ready for production. On the other hand, I
>>>>>> consider an RC to be believed to be production ready but requiring
>>>>>> additional feedback. FWIW - I find RCs a bit confusing since we vote on a
>>>>>> “release candidate” with every release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps we can all take time until this weekend to clean up and
>>>>>> polish before you cut an RC... on Friday?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that the work I was doing on log4j-web can wait for 2.2, so
>>>>>>> no objections for going ahead with 2.1 from me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 September 2014 19:25, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the
>>>>>>>> site so he suggested using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may
>>>>>>>> not be easy and will probably be significant work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so
>>>>>>>> there's no need to look into the implications of the beta idea further.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are there any items we still want to include in this release?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matt,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The
>>>>>>>>> "release" profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x
>>>>>>>>>> releases if issues are found.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the
>>>>>>>>>>> site, making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1 release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
For my money, move them all to 2.2.
Gary
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are there any issues in the list of open 2.1 items
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20LOG4J2%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC>
> we would want to address for 2.1?
>
> Or should these all be moved to 2.2?
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's why I thought calling it a "candidate" release made that
>> distinction. Plus, Alpha, Beta, Candidate release. Going ABC like that
>> makes suffixes like Final or Release both come next, though that's not an
>> issue here.
>>
>> On 23 September 2014 16:30, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> When you do a release that release has to be voted on - which makes it a
>>> release “candidate”. If it is not approved than the candidate fails, you
>>> fix whatever problems there were and move on to the next candidate. In
>>> short, it is something that is just part of the release process for a
>>> specific release. It doesn’t really belong in the artifact id and/or
>>> version. It may need to be represented in the source repository, but that
>>> is difficult to do with Maven.
>>>
>>> The notion of Alpha or Beta denotes the expected stability of the
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Confusing! What's wrong with Alpha, Beta and Release? A release
>>> candidate is our internal bits before it gets to A, B, or R.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe we can call the "release candidate" a "candidate release", while
>>>> the traditional RC is still an RC. So in this case, we do CRs for the
>>>> official release (which I believe was how you suggested naming tags).
>>>>
>>>> On 23 September 2014 11:40, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A beta release is exactly the same as a “regular” release. Just change
>>>>> the version in the pom to 2.1-beta1.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for getting multiple versions on the site, other projects do that.
>>>>> Maven does it for older versions. It should just be a matter of copying
>>>>> the template they use.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO the only reason to do a beta is if their are new features that we
>>>>> consider to be not-quite-ready for production. On the other hand, I
>>>>> consider an RC to be believed to be production ready but requiring
>>>>> additional feedback. FWIW - I find RCs a bit confusing since we vote on a
>>>>> “release candidate” with every release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps we can all take time until this weekend to clean up and polish
>>>>> before you cut an RC... on Friday?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that the work I was doing on log4j-web can wait for 2.2, so no
>>>>>> objections for going ahead with 2.1 from me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 September 2014 19:25, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the
>>>>>>> site so he suggested using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may
>>>>>>> not be easy and will probably be significant work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so
>>>>>>> there's no need to look into the implications of the beta idea further.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are there any items we still want to include in this release?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matt,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The
>>>>>>>> "release" profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x
>>>>>>>>> releases if issues are found.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the
>>>>>>>>>> site, making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1
>>>>>>>>>>> release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>.
Are there any issues in the list of open 2.1 items
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20LOG4J2%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC>
we would want to address for 2.1?
Or should these all be moved to 2.2?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's why I thought calling it a "candidate" release made that
> distinction. Plus, Alpha, Beta, Candidate release. Going ABC like that
> makes suffixes like Final or Release both come next, though that's not an
> issue here.
>
> On 23 September 2014 16:30, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
>> When you do a release that release has to be voted on - which makes it a
>> release “candidate”. If it is not approved than the candidate fails, you
>> fix whatever problems there were and move on to the next candidate. In
>> short, it is something that is just part of the release process for a
>> specific release. It doesn’t really belong in the artifact id and/or
>> version. It may need to be represented in the source repository, but that
>> is difficult to do with Maven.
>>
>> The notion of Alpha or Beta denotes the expected stability of the
>> release.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Confusing! What's wrong with Alpha, Beta and Release? A release candidate
>> is our internal bits before it gets to A, B, or R.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe we can call the "release candidate" a "candidate release", while
>>> the traditional RC is still an RC. So in this case, we do CRs for the
>>> official release (which I believe was how you suggested naming tags).
>>>
>>> On 23 September 2014 11:40, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A beta release is exactly the same as a “regular” release. Just change
>>>> the version in the pom to 2.1-beta1.
>>>>
>>>> As for getting multiple versions on the site, other projects do that.
>>>> Maven does it for older versions. It should just be a matter of copying
>>>> the template they use.
>>>>
>>>> IMO the only reason to do a beta is if their are new features that we
>>>> consider to be not-quite-ready for production. On the other hand, I
>>>> consider an RC to be believed to be production ready but requiring
>>>> additional feedback. FWIW - I find RCs a bit confusing since we vote on a
>>>> “release candidate” with every release.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we can all take time until this weekend to clean up and polish
>>>> before you cut an RC... on Friday?
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know that the work I was doing on log4j-web can wait for 2.2, so no
>>>>> objections for going ahead with 2.1 from me.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 September 2014 19:25, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the
>>>>>> site so he suggested using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may
>>>>>> not be easy and will probably be significant work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so
>>>>>> there's no need to look into the implications of the beta idea further.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there any items we still want to include in this release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The
>>>>>>> "release" profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x
>>>>>>>> releases if issues are found.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site,
>>>>>>>>> making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1
>>>>>>>>>> release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>>>>>>>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
That's why I thought calling it a "candidate" release made that
distinction. Plus, Alpha, Beta, Candidate release. Going ABC like that
makes suffixes like Final or Release both come next, though that's not an
issue here.
On 23 September 2014 16:30, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> When you do a release that release has to be voted on - which makes it a
> release “candidate”. If it is not approved than the candidate fails, you
> fix whatever problems there were and move on to the next candidate. In
> short, it is something that is just part of the release process for a
> specific release. It doesn’t really belong in the artifact id and/or
> version. It may need to be represented in the source repository, but that
> is difficult to do with Maven.
>
> The notion of Alpha or Beta denotes the expected stability of the release.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Confusing! What's wrong with Alpha, Beta and Release? A release candidate
> is our internal bits before it gets to A, B, or R.
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe we can call the "release candidate" a "candidate release", while
>> the traditional RC is still an RC. So in this case, we do CRs for the
>> official release (which I believe was how you suggested naming tags).
>>
>> On 23 September 2014 11:40, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A beta release is exactly the same as a “regular” release. Just change
>>> the version in the pom to 2.1-beta1.
>>>
>>> As for getting multiple versions on the site, other projects do that.
>>> Maven does it for older versions. It should just be a matter of copying
>>> the template they use.
>>>
>>> IMO the only reason to do a beta is if their are new features that we
>>> consider to be not-quite-ready for production. On the other hand, I
>>> consider an RC to be believed to be production ready but requiring
>>> additional feedback. FWIW - I find RCs a bit confusing since we vote on a
>>> “release candidate” with every release.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can all take time until this weekend to clean up and polish
>>> before you cut an RC... on Friday?
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know that the work I was doing on log4j-web can wait for 2.2, so no
>>>> objections for going ahead with 2.1 from me.
>>>>
>>>> On 22 September 2014 19:25, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the site
>>>>> so he suggested using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may not be
>>>>> easy and will probably be significant work.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so
>>>>> there's no need to look into the implications of the beta idea further.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any items we still want to include in this release?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt,
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release"
>>>>>> profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x
>>>>>>> releases if issues are found.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site,
>>>>>>>> making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1
>>>>>>>>> release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>>>>>>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
When you do a release that release has to be voted on - which makes it a release “candidate”. If it is not approved than the candidate fails, you fix whatever problems there were and move on to the next candidate. In short, it is something that is just part of the release process for a specific release. It doesn’t really belong in the artifact id and/or version. It may need to be represented in the source repository, but that is difficult to do with Maven.
The notion of Alpha or Beta denotes the expected stability of the release.
Ralph
On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Confusing! What's wrong with Alpha, Beta and Release? A release candidate is our internal bits before it gets to A, B, or R.
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we can call the "release candidate" a "candidate release", while the traditional RC is still an RC. So in this case, we do CRs for the official release (which I believe was how you suggested naming tags).
>
> On 23 September 2014 11:40, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> A beta release is exactly the same as a “regular” release. Just change the version in the pom to 2.1-beta1.
>
> As for getting multiple versions on the site, other projects do that. Maven does it for older versions. It should just be a matter of copying the template they use.
>
> IMO the only reason to do a beta is if their are new features that we consider to be not-quite-ready for production. On the other hand, I consider an RC to be believed to be production ready but requiring additional feedback. FWIW - I find RCs a bit confusing since we vote on a “release candidate” with every release.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we can all take time until this weekend to clean up and polish before you cut an RC... on Friday?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I know that the work I was doing on log4j-web can wait for 2.2, so no objections for going ahead with 2.1 from me.
>>
>> On 22 September 2014 19:25, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the site so he suggested using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may not be easy and will probably be significant work.
>>
>> As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so there's no need to look into the implications of the beta idea further.
>>
>> Are there any items we still want to include in this release?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
>>>
>>> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for it.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release" profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>>>
>>> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x releases if issues are found.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site, making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>>
>>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1 release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>
>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>
>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Confusing! What's wrong with Alpha, Beta and Release? A release candidate
is our internal bits before it gets to A, B, or R.
Gary
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we can call the "release candidate" a "candidate release", while the
> traditional RC is still an RC. So in this case, we do CRs for the official
> release (which I believe was how you suggested naming tags).
>
> On 23 September 2014 11:40, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A beta release is exactly the same as a “regular” release. Just change
>> the version in the pom to 2.1-beta1.
>>
>> As for getting multiple versions on the site, other projects do that.
>> Maven does it for older versions. It should just be a matter of copying
>> the template they use.
>>
>> IMO the only reason to do a beta is if their are new features that we
>> consider to be not-quite-ready for production. On the other hand, I
>> consider an RC to be believed to be production ready but requiring
>> additional feedback. FWIW - I find RCs a bit confusing since we vote on a
>> “release candidate” with every release.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps we can all take time until this weekend to clean up and polish
>> before you cut an RC... on Friday?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I know that the work I was doing on log4j-web can wait for 2.2, so no
>>> objections for going ahead with 2.1 from me.
>>>
>>> On 22 September 2014 19:25, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the site
>>>> so he suggested using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may not be
>>>> easy and will probably be significant work.
>>>>
>>>> As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so
>>>> there's no need to look into the implications of the beta idea further.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any items we still want to include in this release?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Matt,
>>>>
>>>> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
>>>>
>>>> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for it.
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release"
>>>>> profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x
>>>>>> releases if issues are found.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site,
>>>>>>> making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1
>>>>>>>> release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>>>>>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
Maybe we can call the "release candidate" a "candidate release", while the
traditional RC is still an RC. So in this case, we do CRs for the official
release (which I believe was how you suggested naming tags).
On 23 September 2014 11:40, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> A beta release is exactly the same as a “regular” release. Just change the
> version in the pom to 2.1-beta1.
>
> As for getting multiple versions on the site, other projects do that.
> Maven does it for older versions. It should just be a matter of copying
> the template they use.
>
> IMO the only reason to do a beta is if their are new features that we
> consider to be not-quite-ready for production. On the other hand, I
> consider an RC to be believed to be production ready but requiring
> additional feedback. FWIW - I find RCs a bit confusing since we vote on a
> “release candidate” with every release.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps we can all take time until this weekend to clean up and polish
> before you cut an RC... on Friday?
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I know that the work I was doing on log4j-web can wait for 2.2, so no
>> objections for going ahead with 2.1 from me.
>>
>> On 22 September 2014 19:25, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the site
>>> so he suggested using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may not be
>>> easy and will probably be significant work.
>>>
>>> As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so there's
>>> no need to look into the implications of the beta idea further.
>>>
>>> Are there any items we still want to include in this release?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
>>>
>>> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for it.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release"
>>>> profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x
>>>>> releases if issues are found.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site,
>>>>>> making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1
>>>>>>> release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>>>>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
A beta release is exactly the same as a “regular” release. Just change the version in the pom to 2.1-beta1.
As for getting multiple versions on the site, other projects do that. Maven does it for older versions. It should just be a matter of copying the template they use.
IMO the only reason to do a beta is if their are new features that we consider to be not-quite-ready for production. On the other hand, I consider an RC to be believed to be production ready but requiring additional feedback. FWIW - I find RCs a bit confusing since we vote on a “release candidate” with every release.
Ralph
On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps we can all take time until this weekend to clean up and polish before you cut an RC... on Friday?
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know that the work I was doing on log4j-web can wait for 2.2, so no objections for going ahead with 2.1 from me.
>
> On 22 September 2014 19:25, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the site so he suggested using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may not be easy and will probably be significant work.
>
> As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so there's no need to look into the implications of the beta idea further.
>
> Are there any items we still want to include in this release?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
>>
>> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for it.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release" profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>>
>> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x releases if issues are found.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site, making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>
>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1 release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>
>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>
>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Perhaps we can all take time until this weekend to clean up and polish
before you cut an RC... on Friday?
Gary
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know that the work I was doing on log4j-web can wait for 2.2, so no
> objections for going ahead with 2.1 from me.
>
> On 22 September 2014 19:25, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the site so
>> he suggested using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may not be
>> easy and will probably be significant work.
>>
>> As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so there's
>> no need to look into the implications of the beta idea further.
>>
>> Are there any items we still want to include in this release?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
>>
>> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for it.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release"
>>> profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>>>
>>> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x
>>>> releases if issues are found.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site,
>>>>> making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1
>>>>>> release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>>>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
I know that the work I was doing on log4j-web can wait for 2.2, so no
objections for going ahead with 2.1 from me.
On 22 September 2014 19:25, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the site so
> he suggested using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may not be
> easy and will probably be significant work.
>
> As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so there's
> no need to look into the implications of the beta idea further.
>
> Are there any items we still want to include in this release?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
>
> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for it.
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release"
>> profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>>
>> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x releases
>>> if issues are found.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site,
>>>> making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>>>
>>>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1
>>>>> release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>>>
>>>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>.
Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the site so he suggested using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may not be easy and will probably be significant work.
As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so there's no need to look into the implications of the beta idea further.
Are there any items we still want to include in this release?
Sent from my iPhone
> On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
>
> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for it.
>
> Gary
>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release" profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>>
>>> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x releases if issues are found.
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site, making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>>>
>>>>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1 release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>>>
>>>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Matt,
It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for it.
Gary
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release"
> profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>
> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x releases
>> if issues are found.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site,
>>> making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>>
>>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1
>>>> release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>>
>>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>>
>>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
I guess you'll need Ralph's help on how he did it before.
Gary
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release"
> profile doesn't seem appropriate.
>
> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x releases
>> if issues are found.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site,
>>> making it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>>
>>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1
>>>> release (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>>
>>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>>
>>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release"
profile doesn't seem appropriate.
On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x releases
> if issues are found.
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site, making
>> it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>>
>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1 release
>>> (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>>
>>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>>
>>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>.
I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x releases if
issues are found.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site, making
> it 2.1 might be our best bet.
>
> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1 release
>> (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>>
>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>>
>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site, making
it 2.1 might be our best bet.
On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1 release
> (and follow up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>
> When are we aiming to do this release?
>
> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1.
> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date.
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>