On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > IVY-387 Absolute and relative path > > IVY-232 Incorrect directory path resolve when running from a different > > directory > > => These two are rather old, assigned to you Gilles. Any progress on > > these? Do you need help? > > > > Both are actually the same now. The IVY-387 was an aggregation of > different absolute and relative path issues. All have been solved > except IVY-232 which was a bigger change. [1] > I think Matt may already has a patch, he just need some help to test. Great! I can help on this, either to implement or test. I'll post a comment on the issue to get attention from Matt and see how to procede. > > > > > IVY-872 Improve performance > > => This one is new and assigned to you Gilles. I don't think this should > > be a show stopper for 2.0, and can be postponed to 2.0.1 if it takes too > > long to implement > > > > Correct. Most performance issues that I have observed are now fixed. > I just have one pending. I think that (at least on my benchmark > project) there is still too much ivy file parsing. It seems that the > number of ivy file parsing grows with the size of the repository (or > with the size of the cache) which I didn't explain yet and is a source > of poor performances. > This is the last point that I plan to fix. After I will stop. As it > is not a show stopper this can be postponed to 2.0.1 if it is not done > for the RC-1. release. Sounds like a good plan. > > > > > So I think we're pretty close to be able to enter in 2.0 release > candidates > > cycles, to finally get 2.0 out! Do you see any other outstanding issue > which > > should get in 2.0? Would you agree with a plan trying to get 2.0 RC1 out > > before mid september? Then how do you see the release candidates cycles > > going on? I'd be in favour of trying to keep the cycles short (sg like > every > > 2 weeks), and if no outstanding bug is reported in a cycle, then we > release > > 2.0 final with the same source code as the last RC. What do you think of > > this plan? > > +1. > > I also think that once the RC-1 is released, we should start the 2.0 > branch (or 2.0.0). Keeping the trunk for changes that will be for > 2.0.1 (for example possibly the end of my IVY-872), and the branch > only for 2.0-RC show stoppers. +1 Xavier > > > > -- > Gilles Scokart > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant http://xhab.blogspot.com/ http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ http://www.xoocode.org/
