Yeah, we can always rename the road map - I see this as a non-issue.
I also like that idea that objectstyle.cayenne.1.2 == apache.cayenne.
2.0. So yes, it looks like the next real release after 1.2 will be
3.0 ... and this will happen for technical (or rather organizational)
reasons, not political, which is good IMO ;-)
Andrus
On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:
> Well, we could rename the roadmap to 2.1 ...
>
> I was actually thinking last week there is enough new stuff in 1.2
> that
> it probably really should be a 2.0 release -- not only for technical
> reasons, but also marketing/political. 1.x makes Cayenne sound a lot
> less mature than it really is. Especially with Hibernate at 3.x. And
> then we are talking about EJB 3 support. Maybe 2.0 should be the
> initial Apache release and 3.0 the next roadmap or something?
>
> I think I'd want to keep the bug-fixes for the objectstyle packages on
> sourceforge. We can always apply those fixes to both sides so they
> are
> on the Apache packages, too.
>
> Thanks,
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cris Daniluk [mailto:cris.danilu..mail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 10:51 AM
> To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Does it make sense to move 1.2 branch to Apache?
>
>
>>
>>
>> I'm with Cris on this. +1 for migrating all history into apache
>> SVN.
>> +1 for a "repackaging" release of cayenne with a minimal amount of
>> code changes. I think doing this right after the 1.2 release
>> makes a
>> great deal of sense. I'd recommend calling it 2.0 rather than
>> "apache
>> 1.2" though since it's no longer backwards compatible.
>>
>
>
> We have a 2.0 roadmap, so it might be confusing. Hmm... we could
> always
> start the versioning over at Apache Cayenne 1.0, but that might be
> even
> more
> confusing! Agree on not calling it "1.2 apache" though.
>
> Cris
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Apr 07 2006 - 11:10:17 EDT