Hi, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 12:24 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote: >> Every now and then I keep getting requests via private mail asking to >> release javaflow as it seems to be working for people. Yet I know there >> is still so much essential stuff to fix for a 1.0 release. >> >> Crossing over to the other thread: I know on github I would made a 0.x >> release already ages ago but knowing I won't have time to work on it >> anymore I keep pushing this out at commons. > > Wouldn't this be a case to allow and use intermediate milestone releases? > > Using a 1.0-Mxx version would make still clear to the users things haven't > settled yet (API wise), so should not limit or restrict making API changes > before a final 1.0 release, but would help both the community and the > project moving. More likely to incite further involvement and > contributions, etc. > > Being 'stuck' on getting a (final) 1.0 release out because everything > should be settled and 'frozen' (API wise) first doesn't make sense to me > at all. We should not be so afraid to switch to 2.x if the 1.x API turns out to be cumbersome in some cases. Typically you may also increase Java level in the meantime and therefore eventually even have a benefit of new possibilities. > "Release early and often" really is what keeps open source projects moving > forward, *any* policy which blocks that is plain wrong and should be > fixed. > > Note: I'm not saying I'm against the strict versioning rules, but those > should NOT block getting to a 1.0 release easily. > And I don't think they do. Isn't this where Milestone releases are meant > for? I am not a big fan of milestones unless we really have a forced schedule for the final release. If we get into the situation that the milestone is the latest release for months, we get into jar hell again, because that milestone is then *used* like any proper release. You cannot prevent this. There is a reason why I have to use for a (private) Maven plugin an artifact like org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-container-default:jar:1.0-alpha-9-stable-1. That's a result of such a "milestone" and I really like to avoid this situation for Apache Commons. >> Release and put into dormant? >> It's a strange situation. No release it as 1.0 and go on with 2.x, since 1.0 is probably already based on old technology. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
