Status of 2.3 Release

[Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com>]

Hi All,

I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything signed and
checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the .../dist
directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@ and as soon
as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able to publish
the release.

This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the Apache mirroring
structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release policy according
to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks ago.

My release plan looks like this:

1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3 will superceed 2.2, so
no need to post it
2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is posted

I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow.

Jeff Butler

Re: Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com>]

I've signed and published 2.2.0 on the mirrors, and updated the downloads
page accordingly.  You'll see it after the next site referesh.  I left it
marked as "beta" because I wasn't sure if our vote was final or not.

If we're ready to go GA, we should probably wait until at least tomorrow to
make the user announcement - to give all the mirrors time to update.  All
that remains to be done is the formal announcement, and change the site to
say GA instead of beta.

Jeff Butler



On 12/2/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
>  On 12/2/06, Brandon Goodin <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is this an official vote? If so...
> > +1
> >
> > On 12/2/06, Clinton Begin < clinton.begin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sold.  +1
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/2/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think it's a good idea too.
> > > >
> > > > I could sign the 2.2.0 zip and publish it to the mirrors.  I want to
> > add
> > > the 2.2 PDF docs to it first though.  Then everything for the last DAO
> > > release (including docs) would be in one place.
> > > >
> > > > Sound like a plan?
> > > > Jeff
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/2/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > I think that would be good (of course) :D.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Brandon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin < clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a great point.  I've had similar discussions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about this:  Let's do the vote for 2.2. GA right
> > now.  Assuming it
> > > passes (I don't see why not considering how long it's been out), we
> > update
> > > 2.1.7 to 2.2 on the website by Monday.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then, next Friday (7 days) we start the vote for 2.3 GA and give
> > it 7
> > > more days to settle.  Within two weeks we'll have a 2.2 and a 2.3 GA.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that we should probably GA 2.2 because people are
> > already
> > > using it, but also because it's the last DAO release...that way we
> > have a
> > > GA'd final DAO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sound good?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin < brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm fine with pushing 2.3. But, I had a conversation on the
> > list
> > > with someone who feared upgrading to 2.2 because it wasn't GA. This
> > was,
> > > apparently, a company policy. They need a feature that is available in
> > 2.2
> > > but will not upgrade because it is not GA. If we do not make 2.2 GA
> > then
> > > their company policy will continue to hold them up. I guess I don't
> > see a
> > > reason why we wouldn't make it GA. It has been available for some time
> > with
> > > fewer bugs than 2.1.7. If I were to blow off any release I'd blow off
> > 2.1.7
> > > because it conatins more bugs than 2.2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brandon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My vote is to leave it the way it is.  My conservative,
> > pragmatic
> > > and adventurous sides are all satisfied by having a single GA release
> > as
> > > well as the latest "Beta" release available for download.  2.2 is
> > available
> > > in the past releases if people want it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler < jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this
> > one:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A great example of selective memory on my part :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to.  But
> > maybe
> > > we should let the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days.  If it looks like
> > it
> > > will fly, then we could do the 2.3 GA vote a little sooner.  The major
> > thing
> > > in 2.3 was prepared statement caching and I know there's already been
> > some
> > > public testing of it.  Most of the fixes I did were for esoteric
> > issues.  I
> > > think 2.3 is pretty solid.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the
> > mirrors?
> > > That wouldn't take much effort now that I know how to sign releases
> > (it was
> > > a strange trip into command line hacker heaven).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release
> > makes
> > > it to GA.  The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible.  We could
> > vote for
> > > GA on 2.2. right now actually. "
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So a little closer to what Brandon is
> > suggesting.  However,
> > > I'm more interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting
> > 2.3 to
> > > GA.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler < jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton
> > wanted to
> > > do a new release rather than voting for GA on 2.2.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has
> > been
> > > available for some time and contains several bug fixes over 2.1.7. I
> > would
> > > also say that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The other thought is that there
> > is no
> > > guarantee that 2.3 will be GA quality after we get it out there for 2
> > weeks,
> > > however unlikely that may be. Thanks for getting this all together!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > B
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler < jeffgbutler@gmail.com >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have
> > everything
> > > signed and checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems
> > in the
> > > .../dist directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to
> > infra@
> > > and as soon as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be
> > able
> > > to publish the release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that
> > uses the
> > > Apache mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache
> > release
> > > policy according to the notice the committers received a couple of
> > weeks
> > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My release plan looks like this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.
> > 2.3
> > > will superceed 2.2, so no need to post it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA
> > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3is
> > > posted
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done
> > > tomorrow.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com>]

+1

On 12/2/06, Brandon Goodin <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is this an official vote? If so...
> +1
>
> On 12/2/06, Clinton Begin <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sold.  +1
> >
> >
> > On 12/2/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it's a good idea too.
> > >
> > > I could sign the 2.2.0 zip and publish it to the mirrors.  I want to
> add
> > the 2.2 PDF docs to it first though.  Then everything for the last DAO
> > release (including docs) would be in one place.
> > >
> > > Sound like a plan?
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/2/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > I think that would be good (of course) :D.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Brandon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a great point.  I've had similar discussions.
> > > > >
> > > > > How about this:  Let's do the vote for 2.2. GA right
> now.  Assuming it
> > passes (I don't see why not considering how long it's been out), we
> update
> > 2.1.7 to 2.2 on the website by Monday.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, next Friday (7 days) we start the vote for 2.3 GA and give
> it 7
> > more days to settle.  Within two weeks we'll have a 2.2 and a 2.3 GA.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that we should probably GA 2.2 because people are already
> > using it, but also because it's the last DAO release...that way we have
> a
> > GA'd final DAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sound good?
> > > > >
> > > > > Clinton
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin < brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > I'm fine with pushing 2.3. But, I had a conversation on the list
> > with someone who feared upgrading to 2.2 because it wasn't GA. This was,
> > apparently, a company policy. They need a feature that is available in
> 2.2
> > but will not upgrade because it is not GA. If we do not make 2.2 GA then
> > their company policy will continue to hold them up. I guess I don't see
> a
> > reason why we wouldn't make it GA. It has been available for some time
> with
> > fewer bugs than 2.1.7. If I were to blow off any release I'd blow off
> 2.1.7
> > because it conatins more bugs than 2.2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brandon
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My vote is to leave it the way it is.  My conservative,
> pragmatic
> > and adventurous sides are all satisfied by having a single GA release as
> > well as the latest "Beta" release available for download.  2.2 is
> available
> > in the past releases if people want it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler < jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this
> one:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A great example of selective memory on my part :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to.  But
> maybe
> > we should let the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days.  If it looks like
> it
> > will fly, then we could do the 2.3 GA vote a little sooner.  The major
> thing
> > in 2.3 was prepared statement caching and I know there's already been
> some
> > public testing of it.  Most of the fixes I did were for esoteric
> issues.  I
> > think 2.3 is pretty solid.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the mirrors?
> > That wouldn't take much effort now that I know how to sign releases (it
> was
> > a strange trip into command line hacker heaven).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release
> makes
> > it to GA.  The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible.  We could vote
> for
> > GA on 2.2. right now actually. "
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So a little closer to what Brandon is
> suggesting.  However,
> > I'm more interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting 2.3to
> > GA.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton wanted
> to
> > do a new release rather than voting for GA on 2.2.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has
> been
> > available for some time and contains several bug fixes over 2.1.7. I
> would
> > also say that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The other thought is that there is
> no
> > guarantee that 2.3 will be GA quality after we get it out there for 2
> weeks,
> > however unlikely that may be. Thanks for getting this all together!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > B
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com >
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything
> > signed and checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in
> the
> > .../dist directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to
> infra@
> > and as soon as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be
> able
> > to publish the release.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses
> the
> > Apache mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache
> release
> > policy according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks
> > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My release plan looks like this:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.
> 2.3
> > will superceed 2.2, so no need to post it
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is
> > posted
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done
> > tomorrow.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Brandon Goodin <br...@gmail.com>]

Is this an official vote? If so...
+1

On 12/2/06, Clinton Begin <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sold.  +1
>
>
> On 12/2/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's a good idea too.
> >
> > I could sign the 2.2.0 zip and publish it to the mirrors.  I want to add
> the 2.2 PDF docs to it first though.  Then everything for the last DAO
> release (including docs) would be in one place.
> >
> > Sound like a plan?
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/2/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > I think that would be good (of course) :D.
> > >
> > >
> > > Brandon
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's a great point.  I've had similar discussions.
> > > >
> > > > How about this:  Let's do the vote for 2.2. GA right now.  Assuming it
> passes (I don't see why not considering how long it's been out), we update
> 2.1.7 to 2.2 on the website by Monday.
> > > >
> > > > Then, next Friday (7 days) we start the vote for 2.3 GA and give it 7
> more days to settle.  Within two weeks we'll have a 2.2 and a 2.3 GA.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that we should probably GA 2.2 because people are already
> using it, but also because it's the last DAO release...that way we have a
> GA'd final DAO.
> > > >
> > > > Sound good?
> > > >
> > > > Clinton
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin < brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > I'm fine with pushing 2.3. But, I had a conversation on the list
> with someone who feared upgrading to 2.2 because it wasn't GA. This was,
> apparently, a company policy. They need a feature that is available in 2.2
> but will not upgrade because it is not GA. If we do not make 2.2 GA then
> their company policy will continue to hold them up. I guess I don't see a
> reason why we wouldn't make it GA. It has been available for some time with
> fewer bugs than 2.1.7. If I were to blow off any release I'd blow off 2.1.7
> because it conatins more bugs than 2.2.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brandon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My vote is to leave it the way it is.  My conservative, pragmatic
> and adventurous sides are all satisfied by having a single GA release as
> well as the latest "Beta" release available for download.  2.2 is available
> in the past releases if people want it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler < jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this one:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A great example of selective memory on my part :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to.  But maybe
> we should let the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days.  If it looks like it
> will fly, then we could do the 2.3 GA vote a little sooner.  The major thing
> in 2.3 was prepared statement caching and I know there's already been some
> public testing of it.  Most of the fixes I did were for esoteric issues.  I
> think 2.3 is pretty solid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the mirrors?
> That wouldn't take much effort now that I know how to sign releases (it was
> a strange trip into command line hacker heaven).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > > To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release makes
> it to GA.  The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible.  We could vote for
> GA on 2.2. right now actually. "
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So a little closer to what Brandon is suggesting.  However,
> I'm more interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting 2.3 to
> GA.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton wanted to
> do a new release rather than voting for GA on 2.2.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com >
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been
> available for some time and contains several bug fixes over 2.1.7. I would
> also say that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The other thought is that there is no
> guarantee that 2.3 will be GA quality after we get it out there for 2 weeks,
> however unlikely that may be. Thanks for getting this all together!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > B
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything
> signed and checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the
> .../dist directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@
> and as soon as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able
> to publish the release.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the
> Apache mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release
> policy according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks
> ago.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My release plan looks like this:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3
> will superceed 2.2, so no need to post it
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is
> posted
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done
> tomorrow.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Clinton Begin <cl...@gmail.com>]

Sold.  +1

On 12/2/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it's a good idea too.
>
> I could sign the 2.2.0 zip and publish it to the mirrors.  I want to add
> the 2.2 PDF docs to it first though.  Then everything for the last DAO
> release (including docs) would be in one place.
>
> Sound like a plan?
> Jeff
>
>
> On 12/2/06, Brandon Goodin <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think that would be good (of course) :D.
> >
> > Brandon
> >
> > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > That's a great point.  I've had similar discussions.
> > >
> > > How about this:  Let's do the vote for 2.2. GA right now.  Assuming it
> > > passes (I don't see why not considering how long it's been out), we update
> > > 2.1.7 to 2.2 on the website by Monday.
> > >
> > > Then, next Friday (7 days) we start the vote for 2.3 GA and give it 7
> > > more days to settle.  Within two weeks we'll have a 2.2 and a 2.3 GA.
> > >
> > > I agree that we should probably GA 2.2 because people are already
> > > using it, but also because it's the last DAO release...that way we have a
> > > GA'd final DAO.
> > >
> > > Sound good?
> > >
> > > Clinton
> > >
> > >  On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin < brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm fine with pushing 2.3. But, I had a conversation on the list
> > > > with someone who feared upgrading to 2.2 because it wasn't GA. This
> > > > was, apparently, a company policy. They need a feature that is available in
> > > > 2.2 but will not upgrade because it is not GA. If we do not make 2.2GA then their company policy will continue to hold them up. I guess I don't
> > > > see a reason why we wouldn't make it GA. It has been available for some time
> > > > with fewer bugs than 2.1.7. If I were to blow off any release I'd
> > > > blow off 2.1.7 because it conatins more bugs than 2.2.
> > > >
> > > > Brandon
> > > >
> > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My vote is to leave it the way it is.  My conservative, pragmatic
> > > > > and adventurous sides are all satisfied by having a single GA release as
> > > > > well as the latest "Beta" release available for download.  2.2 is
> > > > > available in the past releases if people want it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Clinton
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler < jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this one:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A great example of selective memory on my part :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to.  But maybe
> > > > > > we should let the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days.  If it
> > > > > > looks like it will fly, then we could do the 2.3 GA vote a
> > > > > > little sooner.  The major thing in 2.3 was prepared statement
> > > > > > caching and I know there's already been some public testing of it.  Most of
> > > > > > the fixes I did were for esoteric issues.  I think 2.3 is pretty
> > > > > > solid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the mirrors?
> > > > > > That wouldn't take much effort now that I know how to sign releases (it was
> > > > > > a strange trip into command line hacker heaven).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release makes
> > > > > > > it to GA.  The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible.  We could vote for
> > > > > > > GA on 2.2. right now actually. "
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So a little closer to what Brandon is suggesting.  However,
> > > > > > > I'm more interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and
> > > > > > > getting 2.3 to GA.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton wanted to
> > > > > > > > do a new release rather than voting for GA on 2.2.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been
> > > > > > > > > available for some time and contains several bug fixes over
> > > > > > > > > 2.1.7. I would also say that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The
> > > > > > > > > other thought is that there is no guarantee that 2.3 will
> > > > > > > > > be GA quality after we get it out there for 2 weeks, however unlikely that
> > > > > > > > > may be. Thanks for getting this all together!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > B
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything
> > > > > > > > > > signed and checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the
> > > > > > > > > > .../dist directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@
> > > > > > > > > > and as soon as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able
> > > > > > > > > > to publish the release.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the
> > > > > > > > > > Apache mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release
> > > > > > > > > > policy according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks
> > > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My release plan looks like this:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3will superceed
> > > > > > > > > > 2.2, so no need to post it
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> > > > > > > > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is
> > > > > > > > > > posted
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done
> > > > > > > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com>]

I think it's a good idea too.

I could sign the 2.2.0 zip and publish it to the mirrors.  I want to add the
2.2 PDF docs to it first though.  Then everything for the last DAO release
(including docs) would be in one place.

Sound like a plan?
Jeff


On 12/2/06, Brandon Goodin <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think that would be good (of course) :D.
>
> Brandon
>
> On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> >
> > That's a great point.  I've had similar discussions.
> >
> > How about this:  Let's do the vote for 2.2. GA right now.  Assuming it
> > passes (I don't see why not considering how long it's been out), we update
> > 2.1.7 to 2.2 on the website by Monday.
> >
> > Then, next Friday (7 days) we start the vote for 2.3 GA and give it 7
> > more days to settle.  Within two weeks we'll have a 2.2 and a 2.3 GA.
> >
> > I agree that we should probably GA 2.2 because people are already using
> > it, but also because it's the last DAO release...that way we have a GA'd
> > final DAO.
> >
> > Sound good?
> >
> > Clinton
> >
> >  On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin < brandon.goodin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm fine with pushing 2.3. But, I had a conversation on the list with
> > > someone who feared upgrading to 2.2 because it wasn't GA. This was,
> > > apparently, a company policy. They need a feature that is available in
> > > 2.2 but will not upgrade because it is not GA. If we do not make 2.2GA then their company policy will continue to hold them up. I guess I don't
> > > see a reason why we wouldn't make it GA. It has been available for some time
> > > with fewer bugs than 2.1.7. If I were to blow off any release I'd blow
> > > off 2.1.7 because it conatins more bugs than 2.2.
> > >
> > > Brandon
> > >
> > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My vote is to leave it the way it is.  My conservative, pragmatic
> > > > and adventurous sides are all satisfied by having a single GA release as
> > > > well as the latest "Beta" release available for download.  2.2 is
> > > > available in the past releases if people want it.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Clinton
> > > >
> > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler < jeffgbutler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this one:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html
> > > > >
> > > > > A great example of selective memory on my part :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to.  But maybe we
> > > > > should let the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days.  If it looks
> > > > > like it will fly, then we could do the 2.3 GA vote a little
> > > > > sooner.  The major thing in 2.3 was prepared statement caching and
> > > > > I know there's already been some public testing of it.  Most of the fixes I
> > > > > did were for esoteric issues.  I think 2.3 is pretty solid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the mirrors?  That
> > > > > wouldn't take much effort now that I know how to sign releases (it was a
> > > > > strange trip into command line hacker heaven).
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release makes it
> > > > > > to GA.  The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible.  We could vote for GA
> > > > > > on 2.2. right now actually. "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So a little closer to what Brandon is suggesting.  However, I'm
> > > > > > more interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting
> > > > > > 2.3 to GA.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton wanted to do
> > > > > > > a new release rather than voting for GA on 2.2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been
> > > > > > > > available for some time and contains several bug fixes over
> > > > > > > > 2.1.7. I would also say that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The
> > > > > > > > other thought is that there is no guarantee that 2.3 will be
> > > > > > > > GA quality after we get it out there for 2 weeks, however unlikely that may
> > > > > > > > be. Thanks for getting this all together!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > B
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything
> > > > > > > > > signed and checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the
> > > > > > > > > .../dist directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@
> > > > > > > > > and as soon as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able
> > > > > > > > > to publish the release.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the
> > > > > > > > > Apache mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release
> > > > > > > > > policy according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks
> > > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My release plan looks like this:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3 will
> > > > > > > > > superceed 2.2, so no need to post it
> > > > > > > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> > > > > > > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is
> > > > > > > > > posted
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done
> > > > > > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Brandon Goodin <br...@gmail.com>]

I think that would be good (of course) :D.

Brandon

On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> That's a great point.  I've had similar discussions.
>
> How about this:  Let's do the vote for 2.2. GA right now.  Assuming it
> passes (I don't see why not considering how long it's been out), we update
> 2.1.7 to 2.2 on the website by Monday.
>
> Then, next Friday (7 days) we start the vote for 2.3 GA and give it 7 more
> days to settle.  Within two weeks we'll have a 2.2 and a 2.3 GA.
>
> I agree that we should probably GA 2.2 because people are already using
> it, but also because it's the last DAO release...that way we have a GA'd
> final DAO.
>
> Sound good?
>
> Clinton
>
> On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm fine with pushing 2.3. But, I had a conversation on the list with
> > someone who feared upgrading to 2.2 because it wasn't GA. This was,
> > apparently, a company policy. They need a feature that is available in
> > 2.2 but will not upgrade because it is not GA. If we do not make 2.2 GA
> > then their company policy will continue to hold them up. I guess I don't see
> > a reason why we wouldn't make it GA. It has been available for some time
> > with fewer bugs than 2.1.7. If I were to blow off any release I'd blow
> > off 2.1.7 because it conatins more bugs than 2.2.
> >
> > Brandon
> >
> > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > My vote is to leave it the way it is.  My conservative, pragmatic and
> > > adventurous sides are all satisfied by having a single GA release as well as
> > > the latest "Beta" release available for download.  2.2 is available in
> > > the past releases if people want it.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Clinton
> > >
> > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler < jeffgbutler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this one:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html
> > > >
> > > > A great example of selective memory on my part :)
> > > >
> > > > Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to.  But maybe we
> > > > should let the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days.  If it looks like
> > > > it will fly, then we could do the 2.3 GA vote a little sooner.  The
> > > > major thing in 2.3 was prepared statement caching and I know there's
> > > > already been some public testing of it.  Most of the fixes I did were for
> > > > esoteric issues.  I think 2.3 is pretty solid.
> > > >
> > > > Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the mirrors?  That
> > > > wouldn't take much effort now that I know how to sign releases (it was a
> > > > strange trip into command line hacker heaven).
> > > >
> > > > Jeff Butler
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was:
> > > > >
> > > > > "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release makes it
> > > > > to GA.  The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible.  We could vote for GA
> > > > > on 2.2. right now actually. "
> > > > >
> > > > > So a little closer to what Brandon is suggesting.  However, I'm
> > > > > more interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting
> > > > > 2.3 to GA.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Clinton
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton wanted to do a
> > > > > > new release rather than voting for GA on 2.2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been
> > > > > > > available for some time and contains several bug fixes over
> > > > > > > 2.1.7. I would also say that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The other
> > > > > > > thought is that there is no guarantee that 2.3 will be GA
> > > > > > > quality after we get it out there for 2 weeks, however unlikely that may be.
> > > > > > > Thanks for getting this all together!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > B
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything signed
> > > > > > > > and checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the
> > > > > > > > .../dist directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@
> > > > > > > > and as soon as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able
> > > > > > > > to publish the release.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the
> > > > > > > > Apache mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release
> > > > > > > > policy according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks
> > > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My release plan looks like this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3 will
> > > > > > > > superceed 2.2, so no need to post it
> > > > > > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> > > > > > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is posted
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Clinton Begin <cl...@gmail.com>]

That's a great point.  I've had similar discussions.

How about this:  Let's do the vote for 2.2. GA right now.  Assuming it
passes (I don't see why not considering how long it's been out), we update
2.1.7 to 2.2 on the website by Monday.

Then, next Friday (7 days) we start the vote for 2.3 GA and give it 7 more
days to settle.  Within two weeks we'll have a 2.2 and a 2.3 GA.

I agree that we should probably GA 2.2 because people are already using it,
but also because it's the last DAO release...that way we have a GA'd final
DAO.

Sound good?

Clinton

On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm fine with pushing 2.3. But, I had a conversation on the list with
> someone who feared upgrading to 2.2 because it wasn't GA. This was,
> apparently, a company policy. They need a feature that is available in 2.2but will not upgrade because it is not GA. If we do not make
> 2.2 GA then their company policy will continue to hold them up. I guess I
> don't see a reason why we wouldn't make it GA. It has been available for
> some time with fewer bugs than 2.1.7. If I were to blow off any release
> I'd blow off 2.1.7 because it conatins more bugs than 2.2.
>
> Brandon
>
> On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> >
> > My vote is to leave it the way it is.  My conservative, pragmatic and
> > adventurous sides are all satisfied by having a single GA release as well as
> > the latest "Beta" release available for download.  2.2 is available in
> > the past releases if people want it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Clinton
> >
> > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler < jeffgbutler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this one:
> > >
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html
> > >
> > > A great example of selective memory on my part :)
> > >
> > > Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to.  But maybe we
> > > should let the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days.  If it looks like it
> > > will fly, then we could do the 2.3 GA vote a little sooner.  The major
> > > thing in 2.3 was prepared statement caching and I know there's already
> > > been some public testing of it.  Most of the fixes I did were for esoteric
> > > issues.  I think 2.3 is pretty solid.
> > >
> > > Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the mirrors?  That
> > > wouldn't take much effort now that I know how to sign releases (it was a
> > > strange trip into command line hacker heaven).
> > >
> > > Jeff Butler
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was:
> > > >
> > > > "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release makes it to
> > > > GA.  The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible.  We could vote for GA on
> > > > 2.2. right now actually. "
> > > >
> > > > So a little closer to what Brandon is suggesting.  However, I'm more
> > > > interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting 2.3 to
> > > > GA.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Clinton
> > > >
> > > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton wanted to do a
> > > > > new release rather than voting for GA on 2.2.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been
> > > > > > available for some time and contains several bug fixes over
> > > > > > 2.1.7. I would also say that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The other
> > > > > > thought is that there is no guarantee that 2.3 will be GA
> > > > > > quality after we get it out there for 2 weeks, however unlikely that may be.
> > > > > > Thanks for getting this all together!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything signed
> > > > > > > and checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the
> > > > > > > .../dist directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@
> > > > > > > and as soon as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able
> > > > > > > to publish the release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the
> > > > > > > Apache mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release
> > > > > > > policy according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks
> > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My release plan looks like this:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3 will
> > > > > > > superceed 2.2, so no need to post it
> > > > > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> > > > > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is posted
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Brandon Goodin <br...@gmail.com>]

I'm fine with pushing 2.3. But, I had a conversation on the list with
someone who feared upgrading to 2.2 because it wasn't GA. This was,
apparently, a company policy. They need a feature that is available in
2.2but will not upgrade because it is not GA. If we do not make
2.2 GA then their company policy will continue to hold them up. I guess I
don't see a reason why we wouldn't make it GA. It has been available for
some time with fewer bugs than 2.1.7. If I were to blow off any release I'd
blow off 2.1.7 because it conatins more bugs than 2.2.

Brandon

On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> My vote is to leave it the way it is.  My conservative, pragmatic and
> adventurous sides are all satisfied by having a single GA release as well as
> the latest "Beta" release available for download.  2.2 is available in the
> past releases if people want it.
>
> Cheers,
> Clinton
>
> On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this one:
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html
> >
> > A great example of selective memory on my part :)
> >
> > Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to.  But maybe we should
> > let the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days.  If it looks like it will
> > fly, then we could do the 2.3 GA vote a little sooner.  The major thing
> > in 2.3 was prepared statement caching and I know there's already been
> > some public testing of it.  Most of the fixes I did were for esoteric
> > issues.  I think 2.3 is pretty solid.
> >
> > Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the mirrors?  That
> > wouldn't take much effort now that I know how to sign releases (it was a
> > strange trip into command line hacker heaven).
> >
> > Jeff Butler
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was:
> > >
> > > "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release makes it to
> > > GA.  The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible.  We could vote for GA on
> > > 2.2. right now actually. "
> > >
> > > So a little closer to what Brandon is suggesting.  However, I'm more
> > > interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting 2.3 to
> > > GA.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Clinton
> > >
> > > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton wanted to do a new
> > > > release rather than voting for GA on 2.2.
> > > >
> > > > Jeff Butler
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been available
> > > > > for some time and contains several bug fixes over 2.1.7. I would
> > > > > also say that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The other thought is that
> > > > > there is no guarantee that 2.3 will be GA quality after we get it
> > > > > out there for 2 weeks, however unlikely that may be. Thanks for getting this
> > > > > all together!
> > > > >
> > > > > B
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything signed and
> > > > > > checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the .../dist
> > > > > > directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@ and as soon
> > > > > > as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able to publish
> > > > > > the release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the Apache
> > > > > > mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release policy
> > > > > > according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My release plan looks like this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3 will
> > > > > > superceed 2.2, so no need to post it
> > > > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> > > > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is posted
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Clinton Begin <cl...@gmail.com>]

My vote is to leave it the way it is.  My conservative, pragmatic and
adventurous sides are all satisfied by having a single GA release as well as
the latest "Beta" release available for download.  2.2 is available in the
past releases if people want it.

Cheers,
Clinton

On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this one:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html
>
> A great example of selective memory on my part :)
>
> Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to.  But maybe we should
> let the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days.  If it looks like it will fly,
> then we could do the 2.3 GA vote a little sooner.  The major thing in 2.3was prepared statement caching and I know there's already been some public
> testing of it.  Most of the fixes I did were for esoteric issues.  I think
> 2.3 is pretty solid.
>
> Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the mirrors?  That wouldn't
> take much effort now that I know how to sign releases (it was a strange trip
> into command line hacker heaven).
>
> Jeff Butler
>
>
>
> On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was:
> >
> > "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release makes it to GA.
> > The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible.  We could vote for GA on
> > 2.2. right now actually. "
> >
> > So a little closer to what Brandon is suggesting.  However, I'm more
> > interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting 2.3 to GA.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Clinton
> >
> > On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton wanted to do a new
> > > release rather than voting for GA on 2.2.
> > >
> > > Jeff Butler
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been available
> > > > for some time and contains several bug fixes over 2.1.7. I would
> > > > also say that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The other thought is that
> > > > there is no guarantee that 2.3 will be GA quality after we get it
> > > > out there for 2 weeks, however unlikely that may be. Thanks for getting this
> > > > all together!
> > > >
> > > > B
> > > >
> > > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything signed and
> > > > > checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the .../dist
> > > > > directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@ and as soon
> > > > > as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able to publish
> > > > > the release.
> > > > >
> > > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the Apache
> > > > > mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release policy
> > > > > according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > My release plan looks like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3 will
> > > > > superceed 2.2, so no need to post it
> > > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> > > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is posted
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeff Butler
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com>]

I forgot about that conversation, I was thinking of this one:

http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ibatis.apache.org/msg01855.html

A great example of selective memory on my part :)

Anyway I'm open to a GA vote for 2.2 if we need to.  But maybe we should let
the dust settle on 2.3 for a few days.  If it looks like it will fly, then
we could do the 2.3 GA vote a little sooner.  The major thing in 2.3 was
prepared statement caching and I know there's already been some public
testing of it.  Most of the fixes I did were for esoteric issues.  I think
2.3 is pretty solid.

Your thoughts - should I post the 2.2 build to the mirrors?  That wouldn't
take much effort now that I know how to sign releases (it was a strange trip
into command line hacker heaven).

Jeff Butler



On 12/1/06, Clinton Begin <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was:
>
> "We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release makes it to GA.
> The beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible.  We could vote for GA on
> 2.2. right now actually. "
>
> So a little closer to what Brandon is suggesting.  However, I'm more
> interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting 2.3 to GA.
>
> Cheers,
> Clinton
>
> On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton wanted to do a new
> > release rather than voting for GA on 2.2.
> >
> > Jeff Butler
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <brandon.goodin@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been available for
> > > some time and contains several bug fixes over 2.1.7. I would also say
> > > that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The other thought is that there is no
> > > guarantee that 2.3 will be GA quality after we get it out there for 2
> > > weeks, however unlikely that may be. Thanks for getting this all together!
> > >
> > > B
> > >
> > > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything signed and
> > > > checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the .../dist
> > > > directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@ and as soon
> > > > as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able to publish
> > > > the release.
> > > >
> > > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the Apache
> > > > mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release policy
> > > > according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks ago.
> > > >
> > > > My release plan looks like this:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3 will superceed
> > > > 2.2, so no need to post it
> > > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> > > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is posted
> > > >
> > > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > > Jeff Butler
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Clinton Begin <cl...@gmail.com>]

To clarify, what I suggested a week or so ago was:

"We can vote for GA anytime, even after another release makes it to GA.  The
beta, alpha, GA status is always flexible.  We could vote for GA on 2.2.
right now actually. "

So a little closer to what Brandon is suggesting.  However, I'm more
interested in leaving 2.1.7 and 2.2 in the past and getting 2.3 to GA.

Cheers,
Clinton

On 12/1/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton wanted to do a new
> release rather than voting for GA on 2.2.
>
> Jeff Butler
>
>
>
> On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been available for
> > some time and contains several bug fixes over 2.1.7. I would also say
> > that 2.2.0 could be made GA. The other thought is that there is no
> > guarantee that 2.3 will be GA quality after we get it out there for 2
> > weeks, however unlikely that may be. Thanks for getting this all together!
> >
> > B
> >
> > On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything signed and
> > > checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the .../dist
> > > directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@ and as soon
> > > as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able to publish
> > > the release.
> > >
> > > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the Apache
> > > mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release policy
> > > according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks ago.
> > >
> > > My release plan looks like this:
> > >
> > > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3 will superceed
> > > 2.2, so no need to post it
> > > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> > > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is posted
> > >
> > > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow.
> > >
> > > Jeff Butler
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com>]

We discussed this some weeks ago.  IIRC, Clinton wanted to do a new release
rather than voting for GA on 2.2.

Jeff Butler



On 12/1/06, Brandon Goodin <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been available for
> some time and contains several bug fixes over 2.1.7. I would also say that
> 2.2.0 could be made GA. The other thought is that there is no guarantee
> that 2.3 will be GA quality after we get it out there for 2 weeks, however
> unlikely that may be. Thanks for getting this all together!
>
> B
>
> On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything signed and
> > checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the .../dist
> > directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@ and as soon
> > as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able to publish
> > the release.
> >
> > This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the Apache
> > mirroring structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release policy
> > according to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks ago.
> >
> > My release plan looks like this:
> >
> > 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3 will superceed 2.2,
> > so no need to post it
> > 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> > 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is posted
> >
> > I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow.
> >
> > Jeff Butler
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Brandon Goodin <br...@gmail.com>]

Curious why we are superceding 2.2 wit 2.3? 2.2 has been available for some
time and contains several bug fixes over 2.1.7. I would also say that
2.2.0could be made GA. The other thought is that there is no guarantee
that
2.3 will be GA quality after we get it out there for 2 weeks, however
unlikely that may be. Thanks for getting this all together!

B

On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything signed and
> checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the .../dist
> directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@ and as soon
> as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able to publish
> the release.
>
> This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the Apache mirroring
> structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release policy according
> to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks ago.
>
> My release plan looks like this:
>
> 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3 will superceed 2.2,
> so no need to post it
> 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is posted
>
> I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow.
>
> Jeff Butler
>
>

Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Clinton Begin <cl...@gmail.com>]

Awesome stuff Jeff.  Thanks for all your hard work.

Clinton

On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything signed and
> checksummed.  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the .../dist
> directories, so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@ and as soon
> as they get the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able to publish
> the release.
>
> This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the Apache mirroring
> structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release policy according
> to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks ago.
>
> My release plan looks like this:
>
> 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3 will superceed 2.2,
> so no need to post it
> 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is posted
>
> I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow.
>
> Jeff Butler
>
>

Re: Status of 2.3 Release

[Larry Meadors <lm...@apache.org>]

Rock on Jeff!

Larry


On 11/30/06, Jeff Butler <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have everything built for 2.3, and have everything signed and checksummed.
>  Unfortunately, there are permission problems in the .../dist directories,
> so I'm stuck right now.  I've sent a note to infra@ and as soon as they get
> the permission problems resolved, then I'll be able to publish the release.
>
> This will be the first iBATIS/Java release that uses the Apache mirroring
> structure - I'm going to implement the new Apache release policy according
> to the notice the committers received a couple of weeks ago.
>
> My release plan looks like this:
>
> 1. Post the 2.3 and 2.1.7 builds to the mirrors.  2.3 will superceed 2.2, so
> no need to post it
> 2. Label 2.3 as beta, 2.1.7 is still the GA release
> 3. Call for a vote for 2.3 GA two weeks after 2.3 is posted
>
> I'll keep you posted - hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow.
>
> Jeff Butler
>