6/22 team meeting notes

[mculpepper]

We've decided on our 2.0 release schedule:
6/30: 2.0.0.Alpha (preview)
7/14: 2.0.0.Beta1
8/4: 2.0.0.Beta2
8/25: 2.0.0.Beta3
9/15: 2.0.0.Beta4
9/22: 2.0.0.CR1
9/29: 2.0.0.CR2
10/6: 2.0.0.GA (in sync with JEMS?)

Note that "milestone" has been changed to "beta" and "preview" to "alpha" to follow the new jboss versioning guidelines.

2.0.0.Alpha prep
Marshall, Koen, and Rob need to tag their repositories for first alpha release to be conducted next week.

Integration plan
We will integrate JBossRules IDE, JBossPortlet IDE, and JBossWS Tools from eviware on Beta1, and BPEL IDE on Beta2.

Runtime dependencies standardization
See thread started here for details:
http://jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=85436

[mculpepper]

It's been brought to my attention that the "Alpha" and "Beta" naming will probably be innacurate according to our versioning guidelines:
http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JBossProductVersioning

Basically the guidelines say that Alpha and Beta should be used for "feature complete" versions. Mark Proctor has argued that odd number versioning (i.e.. 1.9) should be used for the development process and "even" number versioning (i.e. 2.0) should be used for our final user-facing version. Following these guidelines our new release names would look like this:

6/30: 1.9.0.M1
7/14: 1.9.0.M2
8/4: 1.9.0.M3
8/25: 1.9.0.M4
9/15: 2.0.0.Beta
9/22: 2.0.0.CR1
9/29: 2.0.0.CR2
etc..

Definately looking for more feedback if this makes sense (remember we can't use "Milestone" as a release identifier in the same release series as our "GA" because of OSGi's version ordering rules)

[mculpepper]

OK, Looks like we might do some back-pedalling here ;) If we use the new eclipse versioning scheme we should allow ourselves to stick with development milestones/previews and just tag our plugins & features with timestamps. So using this scheme we would revert to our original naming scheme from 1.5, i.e.:

2.0.0.Preview
2.0.0.M1-4
2.0.0.CR1-2
2.0.0.GA

[mculpepper]

Well.. after some discussion on the dev list (starting to sound like an echo chamber in here ...) we've come full circle and decided the original release naming convention should stick, and that "Alpha" and "Beta" release conventions be relaxed to include development milestones. (In other words everything in the original post is good)