Security Redesign and Release 10.x Branch

[Scott Gray-2]

On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

>
> On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>>
>>>> What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what we have now where we create a release branch?
>>>
>>> It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group of contributors because the we can guarantee that it is full compliant with ASF license requirements.
>>
>> Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me.  I'm not entirely clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a, 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?)
>>
>
> Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is "stable" from what is not; in your example, of course 10.04a is not stable; however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1.
> I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we could follow the following strategy: adding the prefix "alpha-" to all the releases we feel like should not be considered "stable".
> For example:
> alpha-10.04.a
> alpha-10.04.b
> Then when we feel we can consider the release stable:
> 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04)
> 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04)
> or even:
> stable-10.04
> stable-10.04.1
>
> Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha release and then continue increasing the suffix:
> alpha-10.04.1
> alpha-10.04.2
> stable-10.04.3
> stable-10.04.4
>
> but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the "stable" release will start with 10.04.3)

I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to describing each release, the download page and perhaps a README file can help as well.
How about:
10.04-alpha-1
10.04-alpha-2
10.04
10.04.1
10.04.2
?

Regards
Scott

[Jacopo Cappellato-3]

On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Scott Gray wrote:

> On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what we have now where we create a release branch?
>>>>
>>>> It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group of contributors because the we can guarantee that it is full compliant with ASF license requirements.
>>>
>>> Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me.  I'm not entirely clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a, 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?)
>>>
>>
>> Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is "stable" from what is not; in your example, of course 10.04a is not stable; however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1.
>> I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we could follow the following strategy: adding the prefix "alpha-" to all the releases we feel like should not be considered "stable".
>> For example:
>> alpha-10.04.a
>> alpha-10.04.b
>> Then when we feel we can consider the release stable:
>> 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04)
>> 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04)
>> or even:
>> stable-10.04
>> stable-10.04.1
>>
>> Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha release and then continue increasing the suffix:
>> alpha-10.04.1
>> alpha-10.04.2
>> stable-10.04.3
>> stable-10.04.4
>>
>> but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the "stable" release will start with 10.04.3)
>
> I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to describing each release, the download page and perhaps a README file can help as well.
> How about:
> 10.04-alpha-1
> 10.04-alpha-2
> 10.04
> 10.04.1
> 10.04.2
> ?
>

Yes, I like it

Jacopo

> Regards
> Scott

[Adrian Crum]

Scott Gray wrote:

> On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what we have now where we create a release branch?
>>>> It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group of contributors because the we can guarantee that it is full compliant with ASF license requirements.
>>> Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me.  I'm not entirely clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a, 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?)
>>>
>> Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is "stable" from what is not; in your example, of course 10.04a is not stable; however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1.
>> I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we could follow the following strategy: adding the prefix "alpha-" to all the releases we feel like should not be considered "stable".
>> For example:
>> alpha-10.04.a
>> alpha-10.04.b
>> Then when we feel we can consider the release stable:
>> 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04)
>> 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04)
>> or even:
>> stable-10.04
>> stable-10.04.1
>>
>> Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha release and then continue increasing the suffix:
>> alpha-10.04.1
>> alpha-10.04.2
>> stable-10.04.3
>> stable-10.04.4
>>
>> but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the "stable" release will start with 10.04.3)
>
> I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to describing each release, the download page and perhaps a README file can help as well.
> How about:
> 10.04-alpha-1
> 10.04-alpha-2
> 10.04
> 10.04.1
> 10.04.2
> ?

Or what other ASF projects do:

10.04-RC1
10.04-RC2
10.04
10.04.1
10.04.2

-Adrian

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>

> Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what we have now where we create a release branch?
>>>>> It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group of contributors because the we can guarantee that
>>>>> it is full compliant with ASF license requirements.
>>>> Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me.  I'm not entirely clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a,
>>>> 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?)
>>>>
>>> Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is "stable" from what is not; in your example, of course
>>> 10.04a is not stable; however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1.
>>> I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we could follow the following strategy: adding the
>>> prefix "alpha-" to all the releases we feel like should not be considered "stable".
>>> For example:
>>> alpha-10.04.a
>>> alpha-10.04.b
>>> Then when we feel we can consider the release stable:
>>> 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04)
>>> 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04)
>>> or even:
>>> stable-10.04
>>> stable-10.04.1
>>>
>>> Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha release and then continue increasing the suffix:
>>> alpha-10.04.1
>>> alpha-10.04.2
>>> stable-10.04.3
>>> stable-10.04.4
>>>
>>> but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the "stable" release will start with 10.04.3)
>>
>> I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to describing each release, the download page and perhaps a README
>> file can help as well.
>> How about:
>> 10.04-alpha-1
>> 10.04-alpha-2
>> 10.04
>> 10.04.1
>> 10.04.2
>> ?
>
> Or what other ASF projects do:
>
> 10.04-RC1
> 10.04-RC2
> 10.04
> 10.04.1
> 10.04.2
>
> -Adrian

+1

Jacques

[Jacopo Cappellato-3]

On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what we have now where we create a release branch?
>>>>> It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group of contributors because the we can guarantee that it is full compliant with ASF license requirements.
>>>> Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me.  I'm not entirely clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a, 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?)
>>>>
>>> Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is "stable" from what is not; in your example, of course 10.04a is not stable; however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1.
>>> I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we could follow the following strategy: adding the prefix "alpha-" to all the releases we feel like should not be considered "stable".
>>> For example:
>>> alpha-10.04.a
>>> alpha-10.04.b
>>> Then when we feel we can consider the release stable:
>>> 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04)
>>> 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04)
>>> or even:
>>> stable-10.04
>>> stable-10.04.1
>>>
>>> Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha release and then continue increasing the suffix:
>>> alpha-10.04.1
>>> alpha-10.04.2
>>> stable-10.04.3
>>> stable-10.04.4
>>>
>>> but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the "stable" release will start with 10.04.3)
>> I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to describing each release, the download page and perhaps a README file can help as well.
>> How about:
>> 10.04-alpha-1
>> 10.04-alpha-2
>> 10.04
>> 10.04.1
>> 10.04.2
>> ?
>
> Or what other ASF projects do:
>
> 10.04-RC1
> 10.04-RC2
> 10.04
> 10.04.1
> 10.04.2
>
> -Adrian

I would prefer to avoid the RC (Release Candidate) suffix because it could be confusing since it is actually a real release, even if not intended to be used in production.

Jacopo

[Adrian Crum]

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what we have now where we create a release branch?
>>>>>> It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group of contributors because the we can guarantee that it is full compliant with ASF license requirements.
>>>>> Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me.  I'm not entirely clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a, 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?)
>>>>>
>>>> Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is "stable" from what is not; in your example, of course 10.04a is not stable; however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1.
>>>> I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we could follow the following strategy: adding the prefix "alpha-" to all the releases we feel like should not be considered "stable".
>>>> For example:
>>>> alpha-10.04.a
>>>> alpha-10.04.b
>>>> Then when we feel we can consider the release stable:
>>>> 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04)
>>>> 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04)
>>>> or even:
>>>> stable-10.04
>>>> stable-10.04.1
>>>>
>>>> Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha release and then continue increasing the suffix:
>>>> alpha-10.04.1
>>>> alpha-10.04.2
>>>> stable-10.04.3
>>>> stable-10.04.4
>>>>
>>>> but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the "stable" release will start with 10.04.3)
>>> I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to describing each release, the download page and perhaps a README file can help as well.
>>> How about:
>>> 10.04-alpha-1
>>> 10.04-alpha-2
>>> 10.04
>>> 10.04.1
>>> 10.04.2
>>> ?
>> Or what other ASF projects do:
>>
>> 10.04-RC1
>> 10.04-RC2
>> 10.04
>> 10.04.1
>> 10.04.2
>>
>> -Adrian
>
> I would prefer to avoid the RC (Release Candidate) suffix because it could be confusing since it is actually a real release, even if not intended to be used in production.

I guess everyone has their preference. Not using the RC suffix seems
more confusing to me. ;-)

[Jacopo Cappellato-3]

On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what we have now where we create a release branch?
>>>>>>> It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group of contributors because the we can guarantee that it is full compliant with ASF license requirements.
>>>>>> Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me.  I'm not entirely clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a, 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is "stable" from what is not; in your example, of course 10.04a is not stable; however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1.
>>>>> I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we could follow the following strategy: adding the prefix "alpha-" to all the releases we feel like should not be considered "stable".
>>>>> For example:
>>>>> alpha-10.04.a
>>>>> alpha-10.04.b
>>>>> Then when we feel we can consider the release stable:
>>>>> 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04)
>>>>> 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04)
>>>>> or even:
>>>>> stable-10.04
>>>>> stable-10.04.1
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha release and then continue increasing the suffix:
>>>>> alpha-10.04.1
>>>>> alpha-10.04.2
>>>>> stable-10.04.3
>>>>> stable-10.04.4
>>>>>
>>>>> but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the "stable" release will start with 10.04.3)
>>>> I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to describing each release, the download page and perhaps a README file can help as well.
>>>> How about:
>>>> 10.04-alpha-1
>>>> 10.04-alpha-2
>>>> 10.04
>>>> 10.04.1
>>>> 10.04.2
>>>> ?
>>> Or what other ASF projects do:
>>>
>>> 10.04-RC1
>>> 10.04-RC2
>>> 10.04
>>> 10.04.1
>>> 10.04.2
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>> I would prefer to avoid the RC (Release Candidate) suffix because it could be confusing since it is actually a real release, even if not intended to be used in production.
>
> I guess everyone has their preference. Not using the RC suffix seems more confusing to me. ;-)
>

HTTPD and Tomcat use a lot "alpha" and "beta" releases

http://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/
http://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6/

I think that RC is used more in branches and tags (for release candidates actually).

Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>> On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what we have now where we create a release branch?
>>>>>>>> It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group of contributors because the we can guarantee
>>>>>>>> that it is full compliant with ASF license requirements.
>>>>>>> Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me.  I'm not entirely clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a,
>>>>>>> 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is "stable" from what is not; in your example, of
>>>>>> course 10.04a is not stable; however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1.
>>>>>> I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we could follow the following strategy: adding the
>>>>>> prefix "alpha-" to all the releases we feel like should not be considered "stable".
>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>> alpha-10.04.a
>>>>>> alpha-10.04.b
>>>>>> Then when we feel we can consider the release stable:
>>>>>> 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04)
>>>>>> 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04)
>>>>>> or even:
>>>>>> stable-10.04
>>>>>> stable-10.04.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha release and then continue increasing the suffix:
>>>>>> alpha-10.04.1
>>>>>> alpha-10.04.2
>>>>>> stable-10.04.3
>>>>>> stable-10.04.4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the "stable" release will start with 10.04.3)
>>>>> I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to describing each release, the download page and perhaps a
>>>>> README file can help as well.
>>>>> How about:
>>>>> 10.04-alpha-1
>>>>> 10.04-alpha-2
>>>>> 10.04
>>>>> 10.04.1
>>>>> 10.04.2
>>>>> ?
>>>> Or what other ASF projects do:
>>>>
>>>> 10.04-RC1
>>>> 10.04-RC2
>>>> 10.04
>>>> 10.04.1
>>>> 10.04.2
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>> I would prefer to avoid the RC (Release Candidate) suffix because it could be confusing since it is actually a real release,
>>> even if not intended to be used in production.
>>
>> I guess everyone has their preference. Not using the RC suffix seems more confusing to me. ;-)
>>
>
> HTTPD and Tomcat use a lot "alpha" and "beta" releases
>
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6/
>
> I think that RC is used more in branches and tags (for release candidates actually).
>
> Jacopo

Then looks like beta alpha are better terms (I quickly plussed because I thought it was the Apache way)

Though I still wonder if we will not been even more considered as a technical framework, than as a ready to use ERP, with this
numbering. In my mind, the less the best, but yes maybe we will benefit better feedback from some major contributors. At least it's
worth to try.

Jacques

[Anil Patel-3]

Do we finally have plan for What all stuff we want to complete before release branch 10.04 is created?

From what I understand community will like to get following done
1) Merge security redesign work into trunk.
2) Layered lookup work finished, This looks be to complete, is that true?  

Do we want to wait till April 30th or create branch sooner?
 
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
HotWax Media Inc
Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz"

On Apr 13, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what we have now where we create a release branch?
>>>>>>>>> It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group of contributors because the we can guarantee
>>>>>>>>> that it is full compliant with ASF license requirements.
>>>>>>>> Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me.  I'm not entirely clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a,
>>>>>>>> 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is "stable" from what is not; in your example, of
>>>>>>> course 10.04a is not stable; however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1.
>>>>>>> I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we could follow the following strategy: adding the
>>>>>>> prefix "alpha-" to all the releases we feel like should not be considered "stable".
>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>> alpha-10.04.a
>>>>>>> alpha-10.04.b
>>>>>>> Then when we feel we can consider the release stable:
>>>>>>> 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04)
>>>>>>> 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04)
>>>>>>> or even:
>>>>>>> stable-10.04
>>>>>>> stable-10.04.1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha release and then continue increasing the suffix:
>>>>>>> alpha-10.04.1
>>>>>>> alpha-10.04.2
>>>>>>> stable-10.04.3
>>>>>>> stable-10.04.4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the "stable" release will start with 10.04.3)
>>>>>> I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to describing each release, the download page and perhaps a
>>>>>> README file can help as well.
>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>> 10.04-alpha-1
>>>>>> 10.04-alpha-2
>>>>>> 10.04
>>>>>> 10.04.1
>>>>>> 10.04.2
>>>>>> ?
>>>>> Or what other ASF projects do:
>>>>>
>>>>> 10.04-RC1
>>>>> 10.04-RC2
>>>>> 10.04
>>>>> 10.04.1
>>>>> 10.04.2
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>> I would prefer to avoid the RC (Release Candidate) suffix because it could be confusing since it is actually a real release,
>>>> even if not intended to be used in production.
>>>
>>> I guess everyone has their preference. Not using the RC suffix seems more confusing to me. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> HTTPD and Tomcat use a lot "alpha" and "beta" releases
>>
>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/
>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6/
>>
>> I think that RC is used more in branches and tags (for release candidates actually).
>>
>> Jacopo
>
> Then looks like beta alpha are better terms (I quickly plussed because I thought it was the Apache way)
>
> Though I still wonder if we will not been even more considered as a technical framework, than as a ready to use ERP, with this numbering. In my mind, the less the best, but yes maybe we will benefit better feedback from some major contributors. At least it's worth to try.
>
> Jacques
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Anil Patel" <[hidden email]>
> Do we finally have plan for What all stuff we want to complete before release branch 10.04 is created?
>
>>From what I understand community will like to get following done
> 1) Merge security redesign work into trunk.
> 2) Layered lookup work finished, This looks be to complete, is that true?

It works but the lookup from lookup. We may fix that before end of month (we had it working already but (only?) CSS changes have
broken it. A specific case seems harder to solve: recursive lookup (call from a lookup to the same lookup, it's the case with
parents -
workeffort, facility, categories(?), etc.). Anyway we could commit with these specific lookups still using window and change them
after to layer. I have them in a patch, maybe not all though... There are also small issues but nothing blocking (see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3445)

Jacques

> Do we want to wait till April 30th or create branch sooner?
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Anil Patel
> HotWax Media Inc
> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz"
>
> On Apr 13, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what we have now where we create a release branch?
>>>>>>>>>> It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group of contributors because the we can guarantee
>>>>>>>>>> that it is full compliant with ASF license requirements.
>>>>>>>>> Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me.  I'm not entirely clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a,
>>>>>>>>> 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is "stable" from what is not; in your example, of
>>>>>>>> course 10.04a is not stable; however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1.
>>>>>>>> I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we could follow the following strategy: adding
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> prefix "alpha-" to all the releases we feel like should not be considered "stable".
>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>> alpha-10.04.a
>>>>>>>> alpha-10.04.b
>>>>>>>> Then when we feel we can consider the release stable:
>>>>>>>> 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04)
>>>>>>>> 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04)
>>>>>>>> or even:
>>>>>>>> stable-10.04
>>>>>>>> stable-10.04.1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha release and then continue increasing the
>>>>>>>> suffix:
>>>>>>>> alpha-10.04.1
>>>>>>>> alpha-10.04.2
>>>>>>>> stable-10.04.3
>>>>>>>> stable-10.04.4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the "stable" release will start with 10.04.3)
>>>>>>> I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to describing each release, the download page and perhaps a
>>>>>>> README file can help as well.
>>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>> 10.04-alpha-1
>>>>>>> 10.04-alpha-2
>>>>>>> 10.04
>>>>>>> 10.04.1
>>>>>>> 10.04.2
>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>> Or what other ASF projects do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10.04-RC1
>>>>>> 10.04-RC2
>>>>>> 10.04
>>>>>> 10.04.1
>>>>>> 10.04.2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>> I would prefer to avoid the RC (Release Candidate) suffix because it could be confusing since it is actually a real release,
>>>>> even if not intended to be used in production.
>>>>
>>>> I guess everyone has their preference. Not using the RC suffix seems more confusing to me. ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> HTTPD and Tomcat use a lot "alpha" and "beta" releases
>>>
>>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/
>>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6/
>>>
>>> I think that RC is used more in branches and tags (for release candidates actually).
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>
>> Then looks like beta alpha are better terms (I quickly plussed because I thought it was the Apache way)
>>
>> Though I still wonder if we will not been even more considered as a technical framework, than as a ready to use ERP, with this
>> numbering. In my mind, the less the best, but yes maybe we will benefit better feedback from some major contributors. At least
>> it's worth to try.
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>
>