Hi,I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6- incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new releases.
Craig On Nov 21, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
WilliamGood point, but since the trunk (from which "0.9.7-incubating- SNAPSHOT" nighties are being built) has advanced with potentially destabilizing changes since the branch point "0.9.6-incubating", it might be even more confusing for anyone who is relying on "0.9.7- incubating-SNAPSHOT" changes to see them suddenly gone in a subsequent "0.9.7-incubating" release. We'd rather fix the issues with the licenses and other miscellaneous issues and get the release out the door without introducing the risk of new and changed code causing unnecessary problems and further delays.On Nov 21, 2006, at 5:44 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:For the purposes of closure, I am officially withdrawing this vote forthe openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release while we make the changes that Robert mentions. We expect that a new vote will be started for the 0.9.6-incubating releaseRemember version numbers are *cheap* - burn one. It resolves confusionover 'which 0.9.6 is the problem?' 0.9.7, .8, .9, .10 etc can always follow (and is a good sign the releases are being triple checked when versions end up begin skipped.) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
