You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to npanday-dev@incubator.apache.org by Josimpson Ocaba <jo...@maestrodev.com> on 2010/10/11 05:06:58 UTC
Re: [Proposal] NPanday 2.0 Milestones
--
Joe Ocaba
----- "Brett Porter" <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 09/09/2010, at 12:35 AM, craig@apache.org wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > First congrats on 1.2.1 and the successful move to apache.
> >
> > Removing UAC/RDF seems to me like pretty major surgery. Could we
> perhaps get
> > some more point releases out before that work is ready for release?
>
> I agree - as long as there are people willing to drive it. As I said
> earlier, this would be good to do in parallel - it's a good time to
> focus on the "major surgery", but we don't want that to stop releases
> either.
>
I agree with doing minor releases.
a. NPanday is relatively new to Apache (although most of its developers are not) this will help us as a community on getting used to doing the releases and when we do a major release we will have a from actual experience reference.
b. Getting the fixed items out to users for consumption is always a great welcome from any point of view (keeping in mind that we keep the bugs to a minimum if not zero )
> >
> > I'd like to get http://npanday.codeplex.com/workitem/13452 into the
> next
> > release, which I should get committed pretty soon, now the apache
> move is
> > complete.
>
> The SVN move is complete, so you can commit when ready - either way
> it'll be on the right branch :)
>
> We can gradually move over the other infrastructure as we go.
>
> >
> > If the UAC work would be very disruptive, it might be better to do
> that on a
> > feature branch, while other smaller work continues on the trunk.
> Then when
> > the branch has stabilised a bit, it can come back to trunk.
> >
> > (forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn...I'm the release/build
> manager at
> > my work, so I have ways I like to do things :)
>
> I'd be fine with this, or the alternative of branching a "stable
> branch" (npanday-1.2.x) and having trunk for the other work. I tend to
> prefer the latter as you only ever have to merge the branch to trunk,
> not trunk to branch and then back again (or risk the branch getting
> out of date).
>
> - Brett
We now have branches for the "UAC Removal" and the "VS2010 Support" and I think that once we have these things stabled. We can merge them into trunk and then update trunk to 2.0 or a milestone release version so that we can continue the spirit of having the latest features out there for consumption.
In conjunction with these we also propose that we branch of 1.2.x before merging the other branches, so that we still have a solid stable point to support the 1.2.x series.
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
Re: [Proposal] NPanday 2.0 Milestones
Posted by Josimpson Ocaba <jo...@maestrodev.com>.
----- "Brett Porter" <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/10/2010, at 4:06 PM, Josimpson Ocaba wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Joe Ocaba
> > ----- "Brett Porter" <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/09/2010, at 12:35 AM, craig@apache.org wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> First congrats on 1.2.1 and the successful move to apache.
> >>>
> >>> Removing UAC/RDF seems to me like pretty major surgery. Could we
> >> perhaps get
> >>> some more point releases out before that work is ready for
> release?
> >>
> >> I agree - as long as there are people willing to drive it. As I
> said
> >> earlier, this would be good to do in parallel - it's a good time
> to
> >> focus on the "major surgery", but we don't want that to stop
> releases
> >> either.
> >>
> >
> > I agree with doing minor releases.
> >
> > a. NPanday is relatively new to Apache (although most of its
> developers are not) this will help us as a community on getting used
> to doing the releases and when we do a major release we will have a
> from actual experience reference.
> > b. Getting the fixed items out to users for consumption is always a
> great welcome from any point of view (keeping in mind that we keep the
> bugs to a minimum if not zero )
>
> Good points!
>
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to get http://npanday.codeplex.com/workitem/13452 into
> the
> >> next
> >>> release, which I should get committed pretty soon, now the apache
> >> move is
> >>> complete.
> >>
> >> The SVN move is complete, so you can commit when ready - either
> way
> >> it'll be on the right branch :)
> >>
> >> We can gradually move over the other infrastructure as we go.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If the UAC work would be very disruptive, it might be better to
> do
> >> that on a
> >>> feature branch, while other smaller work continues on the trunk.
> >> Then when
> >>> the branch has stabilised a bit, it can come back to trunk.
> >>>
> >>> (forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn...I'm the release/build
> >> manager at
> >>> my work, so I have ways I like to do things :)
> >>
> >> I'd be fine with this, or the alternative of branching a "stable
> >> branch" (npanday-1.2.x) and having trunk for the other work. I tend
> to
> >> prefer the latter as you only ever have to merge the branch to
> trunk,
> >> not trunk to branch and then back again (or risk the branch
> getting
> >> out of date).
> >>
> >> - Brett
> >
> >
> > We now have branches for the "UAC Removal" and the "VS2010 Support"
> and I think that once we have these things stabled. We can merge them
> into trunk and then update trunk to 2.0 or a milestone release version
> so that we can continue the spirit of having the latest features out
> there for consumption.
> >
> > In conjunction with these we also propose that we branch of 1.2.x
> before merging the other branches, so that we still have a solid
> stable point to support the 1.2.x series.
> >
>
>
> So which would come first? Remember the first release here has a lot
> of prerequisites to complete first and will take a bit of time to
> complete.
I think we could start with branching the trunk for the 1.2.x series and then do the enhancements/bug fixes that we initially planned for 2.0 in a 1.2.3?
What do the others think?
Re: [Proposal] NPanday 2.0 Milestones
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 11/10/2010, at 4:06 PM, Josimpson Ocaba wrote:
>
>
> --
> Joe Ocaba
> ----- "Brett Porter" <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 09/09/2010, at 12:35 AM, craig@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> First congrats on 1.2.1 and the successful move to apache.
>>>
>>> Removing UAC/RDF seems to me like pretty major surgery. Could we
>> perhaps get
>>> some more point releases out before that work is ready for release?
>>
>> I agree - as long as there are people willing to drive it. As I said
>> earlier, this would be good to do in parallel - it's a good time to
>> focus on the "major surgery", but we don't want that to stop releases
>> either.
>>
>
> I agree with doing minor releases.
>
> a. NPanday is relatively new to Apache (although most of its developers are not) this will help us as a community on getting used to doing the releases and when we do a major release we will have a from actual experience reference.
> b. Getting the fixed items out to users for consumption is always a great welcome from any point of view (keeping in mind that we keep the bugs to a minimum if not zero )
Good points!
>>>
>>> I'd like to get http://npanday.codeplex.com/workitem/13452 into the
>> next
>>> release, which I should get committed pretty soon, now the apache
>> move is
>>> complete.
>>
>> The SVN move is complete, so you can commit when ready - either way
>> it'll be on the right branch :)
>>
>> We can gradually move over the other infrastructure as we go.
>>
>>>
>>> If the UAC work would be very disruptive, it might be better to do
>> that on a
>>> feature branch, while other smaller work continues on the trunk.
>> Then when
>>> the branch has stabilised a bit, it can come back to trunk.
>>>
>>> (forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn...I'm the release/build
>> manager at
>>> my work, so I have ways I like to do things :)
>>
>> I'd be fine with this, or the alternative of branching a "stable
>> branch" (npanday-1.2.x) and having trunk for the other work. I tend to
>> prefer the latter as you only ever have to merge the branch to trunk,
>> not trunk to branch and then back again (or risk the branch getting
>> out of date).
>>
>> - Brett
>
>
> We now have branches for the "UAC Removal" and the "VS2010 Support" and I think that once we have these things stabled. We can merge them into trunk and then update trunk to 2.0 or a milestone release version so that we can continue the spirit of having the latest features out there for consumption.
>
> In conjunction with these we also propose that we branch of 1.2.x before merging the other branches, so that we still have a solid stable point to support the 1.2.x series.
>
So which would come first? Remember the first release here has a lot of prerequisites to complete first and will take a bit of time to complete.
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
Re: [Proposal] NPanday 2.0 Milestones
Posted by Adelita Padilla <ap...@g2ix.net>.
+ 1 on branching a stable support for 1.2.x
thanks,
liit
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josimpson Ocaba" <jo...@maestrodev.com>
To: npanday-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 1:06:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Proposal] NPanday 2.0 Milestones
--
Joe Ocaba
----- "Brett Porter" <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 09/09/2010, at 12:35 AM, craig@apache.org wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > First congrats on 1.2.1 and the successful move to apache.
> >
> > Removing UAC/RDF seems to me like pretty major surgery. Could we
> perhaps get
> > some more point releases out before that work is ready for release?
>
> I agree - as long as there are people willing to drive it. As I said
> earlier, this would be good to do in parallel - it's a good time to
> focus on the "major surgery", but we don't want that to stop releases
> either.
>
I agree with doing minor releases.
a. NPanday is relatively new to Apache (although most of its developers are not) this will help us as a community on getting used to doing the releases and when we do a major release we will have a from actual experience reference.
b. Getting the fixed items out to users for consumption is always a great welcome from any point of view (keeping in mind that we keep the bugs to a minimum if not zero )
> >
> > I'd like to get http://npanday.codeplex.com/workitem/13452 into the
> next
> > release, which I should get committed pretty soon, now the apache
> move is
> > complete.
>
> The SVN move is complete, so you can commit when ready - either way
> it'll be on the right branch :)
>
> We can gradually move over the other infrastructure as we go.
>
> >
> > If the UAC work would be very disruptive, it might be better to do
> that on a
> > feature branch, while other smaller work continues on the trunk.
> Then when
> > the branch has stabilised a bit, it can come back to trunk.
> >
> > (forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn...I'm the release/build
> manager at
> > my work, so I have ways I like to do things :)
>
> I'd be fine with this, or the alternative of branching a "stable
> branch" (npanday-1.2.x) and having trunk for the other work. I tend to
> prefer the latter as you only ever have to merge the branch to trunk,
> not trunk to branch and then back again (or risk the branch getting
> out of date).
>
> - Brett
We now have branches for the "UAC Removal" and the "VS2010 Support" and I think that once we have these things stabled. We can merge them into trunk and then update trunk to 2.0 or a milestone release version so that we can continue the spirit of having the latest features out there for consumption.
In conjunction with these we also propose that we branch of 1.2.x before merging the other branches, so that we still have a solid stable point to support the 1.2.x series.
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/