You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cactus-dev@jakarta.apache.org by Vincent Massol <vm...@pivolis.com> on 2004/02/28 12:22:18 UTC
1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?)
Hi Nick and all,
One last try to convince you that we should release 1.6. If I do not
succeed we'll deliver a 1.5.1... :-)
Reasons:
1/ The Cactus versioning is as follows: major.minor.patch => 1.6 would
be a minor release. 1.5.1 would mean a patch release but it's not
really. Actually there are more additions/updates than fixes. Out of 21
changes there are:
- 11 new additions
- 3 updates
- 7 fixes
2/ We have moved to ASL 2.0
3/ All past versions of Cactus have so far been of the type major.minor
except for patch releases (there was only one I think: 1.4.1 because 1.4
was quite buggy).
4/ Among the new additions there is a big one: The Maven plugin for
Cactus, which itself warrants a new minor release I think.
5/ It's easier to release a 1.6 than a 1.5.1 as everything everywhere is
tagged with 1.6 now (including docs like the feature page, etc). Also
users are expecting that the next release is 1.6, not 1.5.1.
6/ I'd like to release the new maven plugin under a 1.6 version rather
than a 1.5.1 (it's more consistent with the fact that all users have
been using 1.6 snapshots so far).
All in all, I think we have enough changes to make it a 1.6 release.
What do you think? :-)
Thanks
-Vincent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Lesiecki [mailto:ndlesiecki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 28 February 2004 06:20
> To: Cactus Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?
>
> Seems there are enough bug fixes to warrant a release, but 1.6 implies
> a major fix or additional functionality. 1.5.1 will only be as new as
> 1.6dev for a short while. Soon 1.6dev builds will be newer. So I guess
> I'd go with 1.5.1. But I don't feel strongly.
>
>
> +1 on release
> +0 on 1.5.1
>
> Nick
> On Feb 27, 2004, at 5:35 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> > Thinking about it, it might be better to name the release 1.6
instead
> > of
> > 1.5.1 as it will confuse users already using development builds of
> > 1.6dev. They will think their build is more recent than 1.5.1
whereas
> > it
> > is not.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Vincent Massol [mailto:vmassol@pivolis.com]
> >> Sent: 27 February 2004 11:30
> >> To: 'Cactus Developers List'
> >> Subject: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?
> >>
> >> Hi cactus committers,
> >>
> >> What would you think about releasing an interim Cactus 1.5.1
release
> >> containing everything we have in CVS HEAD?
> >>
> >> Here's the list of changes since the 1.5 release:
> >> http://jakarta.apache.org/cactus/changes.html#release_changes
> >>
> >> I think we have enough to warrant a minor release. I could perform
the
> >> release in about 1 or 2 weeks if we're ok.
> >>
> >> Here's my +1
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> -Vincent
> >> Wanna see JUnit in Action?
> >> (http://manning.com/massol)
> >>
> >>
> >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
LICENSE and NOTICE files for ASL 2.0 ?(was RE: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?))
Posted by Vincent Massol <vm...@pivolis.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:cmlenz@gmx.de]
> Sent: 28 February 2004 15:56
> To: Cactus Developers List
> Subject: Re: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?)
[snip]
>
> About the new license. As far as I understand, we should really stay
> closer to the names LICENSE AND NOTICE. Currently they're called
> LICENSE.cactus and NOTICE.cactus.
> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html (at the bottom) says it's
> okay to add a ".txt" extension, but it sounds like anything else would
> be to much. I think we should drop the ".cactus" part. There's not
much
> benefit to it anyway IMO.
+1 from me.
Do you want to make the change?
Thanks
-Vincent
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Removing author tags (was RE: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?))
Posted by Nicholas Lesiecki <nd...@yahoo.com>.
Ok, I'm convinced:
+1 1.6
+1 NOTICE name change
+1 remove author tags (I don't even need the reasoning, I don't like
author tags period. : )
On Feb 28, 2004, at 11:28 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:cmlenz@gmx.de]
>> Sent: 28 February 2004 15:56
>> To: Cactus Developers List
>> Subject: Re: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?)
>
> [snip]
>
>> Also, the ASF board announced that it would prefer to see @autor tags
>> removed from Java sources. Is this something we should do for the
>> release? I for one agree with the reasoning behind this decision, and
>> would be in favor of removing the tags. The contributors are all
> listed
>> in the docs and the website already.
>
> Here's my +1 too.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
[VOTE] Removing author tags (was RE: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?))
Posted by Vincent Massol <vm...@pivolis.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:cmlenz@gmx.de]
> Sent: 28 February 2004 15:56
> To: Cactus Developers List
> Subject: Re: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?)
[snip]
> Also, the ASF board announced that it would prefer to see @autor tags
> removed from Java sources. Is this something we should do for the
> release? I for one agree with the reasoning behind this decision, and
> would be in favor of removing the tags. The contributors are all
listed
> in the docs and the website already.
Here's my +1 too.
Thanks
-Vincent
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?)
Posted by Christopher Lenz <cm...@gmx.de>.
Am 28.02.2004 um 12:22 schrieb Vincent Massol:
> One last try to convince you that we should release 1.6. If I do not
> succeed we'll deliver a 1.5.1... :-)
>
> Reasons:
>
> 1/ The Cactus versioning is as follows: major.minor.patch => 1.6 would
> be a minor release. 1.5.1 would mean a patch release but it's not
> really. Actually there are more additions/updates than fixes. Out of 21
> changes there are:
> - 11 new additions
> - 3 updates
> - 7 fixes
>
> 2/ We have moved to ASL 2.0
>
> 3/ All past versions of Cactus have so far been of the type major.minor
> except for patch releases (there was only one I think: 1.4.1 because
> 1.4
> was quite buggy).
>
> 4/ Among the new additions there is a big one: The Maven plugin for
> Cactus, which itself warrants a new minor release I think.
>
> 5/ It's easier to release a 1.6 than a 1.5.1 as everything everywhere
> is
> tagged with 1.6 now (including docs like the feature page, etc). Also
> users are expecting that the next release is 1.6, not 1.5.1.
>
> 6/ I'd like to release the new maven plugin under a 1.6 version rather
> than a 1.5.1 (it's more consistent with the fact that all users have
> been using 1.6 snapshots so far).
>
> All in all, I think we have enough changes to make it a 1.6 release.
>
> What do you think? :-)
I think 1.6 is fine. There aren't as many changes as for 1.5, but
then 1.5 took us a very long time to release, and arguably had too
much new or changed stuff ;-)
About the new license. As far as I understand, we should really stay
closer to the names LICENSE AND NOTICE. Currently they're called
LICENSE.cactus and NOTICE.cactus.
http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html (at the bottom) says it's
okay to add a ".txt" extension, but it sounds like anything else would
be to much. I think we should drop the ".cactus" part. There's not much
benefit to it anyway IMO.
Also, the ASF board announced that it would prefer to see @autor tags
removed from Java sources. Is this something we should do for the
release? I for one agree with the reasoning behind this decision, and
would be in favor of removing the tags. The contributors are all listed
in the docs and the website already.
Cheers,
Chris
--
Christopher Lenz
/=/ cmlenz at gmx.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org