Owen OMalley 2012-09-04, 18:55
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-09-04, 19:19
I am fine with that too, but it is going to be a fairly large amount of
work to pull in all of the bug fixes into 2.0 that have gone into 0.23.
There was already a lot of discussion about just rebasing 2.1 instead of
trying to merge everything back into it and 2.1 is a lot further along
then 2.0 is. Just something to be aware of.
On 9/4/12 2:19 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>+1 for moving on with 2.0 till it gets GA'ed, given we haven't made much
>progress on 2.0.1-alpha.
>+1 for putting the alpha/beta tags only on releases, and not on branches.
>This also reduces some branch-clutter like I mentioned on the other
>thread on email@example.com.
>On Sep 4, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>> While cleaning up the subversion branches, I thought more about the
>> branch 2 release names. I'm concerned if we backtrack and reuse
>> release numbers it will be extremely confusing to users. It also
>> creates problems for tools like Maven that parse version numbers and
>> expect a left to right release numbering scheme (eg. 2.1.1-alpha >
>> 2.1.0). It also seems better to keep on the 2.0.x minor release until
>> after we get a GA release off of the 2.0 branch.
>> Therefore, I'd like to propose:
>> 1. rename branch-2.0.1-alpha -> branch-2.0
>> 2. delete branch-2.1.0-alpha
>> 3. stabilizing goes into branch-2.0 until it gets to GA
>> 4. features go into branch-2 and will be branched into branch-2.1 later
>> 5. The release tags can have the alpha/beta tags on them.
>> -- Owen
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-09-05, 00:29
Robert Evans 2012-09-05, 14:25
Eli Collins 2012-09-05, 15:52
Andrew Purtell 2012-09-05, 18:04
Owen OMalley 2012-09-06, 16:27
Andrew Purtell 2012-09-06, 16:29
Arun C Murthy 2012-09-06, 18:18
Arun C Murthy 2012-09-06, 18:38
Arun C Murthy 2012-09-06, 18:41