Hi,
with the “time boxed” release model proposal it was stressed how important it is
to have synched up releases (since GeoServer needs to make a GeoTools release anyways
when doing its own and that has the benefit of making Geotools frequent releases).
However, now we have GS 2.2-RC2 and GT 8.0 out.
What happens for GS 2.2-RC3? Are we going to release GT 8.1 after just 15 days
of the last release? That seems a bit extreme to me.
And what if we have to make another RC for some reason, 8.2 after another two weeks?
Bleck…
8.0.1 seems reasonable to me? Doesn’t feel extreme after 15 days, and represents some minor improvements/fixes. And doesn’t make us do some weird geoserver specific tag.
Hi,
with the “time boxed” release model proposal it was stressed how important it is
to have synched up releases (since GeoServer needs to make a GeoTools release anyways
when doing its own and that has the benefit of making Geotools frequent releases).
However, now we have GS 2.2-RC2 and GT 8.0 out.
What happens for GS 2.2-RC3? Are we going to release GT 8.1 after just 15 days
of the last release? That seems a bit extreme to me.
And what if we have to make another RC for some reason, 8.2 after another two weeks?
Bleck…
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today’s security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
8.0.1 seems reasonable to me? Doesn’t feel extreme after 15 days, and represents some minor improvements/fixes. And doesn’t make us do some weird geoserver specific tag.
Maybe? The thing is, with the new numbering system we were supposed to
have 8.0, 8.1, 8.2 as the patch releases, the next major (in six months or so) will be 9.0
I actually don’t see upping the minor version number as such a big issue… especially given that now with this new system the life of a major version numbers is much shorter (6 months). If folks don’t like a new minor version number than i agree with Chris let’s just up the patch number.
8.0.1 seems reasonable to me? Doesn’t feel extreme after 15 days, and represents some minor improvements/fixes. And doesn’t make us do some weird geoserver specific tag.
Hi,
with the “time boxed” release model proposal it was stressed how important it is
to have synched up releases (since GeoServer needs to make a GeoTools release anyways
when doing its own and that has the benefit of making Geotools frequent releases).
However, now we have GS 2.2-RC2 and GT 8.0 out.
What happens for GS 2.2-RC3? Are we going to release GT 8.1 after just 15 days
of the last release? That seems a bit extreme to me.
And what if we have to make another RC for some reason, 8.2 after another two weeks?
Bleck…
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today’s security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today’s security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
I would just handle this with our head up, if it really is just a patch with bug fixes in it then we up the patch.
If we have back ported new functionality, or additional API, then a point release is warranted.
–
Jody Garnett
On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 3:35 AM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
I actually don’t see upping the minor version number as such a big issue… especially given that now with this new system the life of a major version numbers is much shorter (6 months). If folks don’t like a new minor version number than i agree with Chris let’s just up the patch number.
8.0.1 seems reasonable to me? Doesn’t feel extreme after 15 days, and represents some minor improvements/fixes. And doesn’t make us do some weird geoserver specific tag.
Hi,
with the “time boxed” release model proposal it was stressed how important it is
to have synched up releases (since GeoServer needs to make a GeoTools release anyways
when doing its own and that has the benefit of making Geotools frequent releases).
However, now we have GS 2.2-RC2 and GT 8.0 out.
What happens for GS 2.2-RC3? Are we going to release GT 8.1 after just 15 days
of the last release? That seems a bit extreme to me.
And what if we have to make another RC for some reason, 8.2 after another two weeks?
Bleck…
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today’s security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today’s security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
–
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today’s security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
I would just handle this with our head up, if it really is just a patch with bug fixes in it then we up the patch.
If we have back ported new functionality, or additional API, then a point release is warranted.
Mind, with the “time boxed releases” proposal approved we don’t do releases based on contents
anymore, so the fact that there is new functionality is not relevant for a point release.
The only worry I have is that we’re going to make 8.1 after just 15 days from 8.0 instead of a month,
that’s all
I would just handle this with our head up, if it really is just a patch with bug fixes in it then we up the patch.
If we have back ported new functionality, or additional API, then a point release is warranted.
Mind, with the “time boxed releases” proposal approved we don’t do releases based on contents
anymore, so the fact that there is new functionality is not relevant for a point release.
The only worry I have is that we’re going to make 8.1 after just 15 days from 8.0 instead of a month,
that’s all
+1. Waiting to synchronise major releases may have in the past been an impediment to regular releases. A bit more wiggle room will help.
On 16/08/12 01:30, Chris Holmes wrote:
8.0.1 seems reasonable to me? Doesn't feel extreme after 15 days, and
represents some minor improvements/fixes. And doesn't make us do some
weird geoserver specific tag.
--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com>
Software Engineer
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
Australian Resources Research Centre
