1 Reply Latest reply on Mar 20, 2010 9:54 AM by Ronald van Kuijk

    Releasing a Service Pack version of JBPM 4.3 (JBPM-4.3.SP1)

    Peter Horvath Newbie

      Hello All,

       

      I had a look at the Jira of JBPM and it seems that version 4.4 is supposed to be released on the March, 1st. Given the fact that there are quite a lot of unsolved issues that are related to the new BPMN2 language which was introduced in the latest version and presumably affects less people than the bugs found in the standard JPDL and the runtime engine that have already been fixed in 4.4 trunk I think it would be worth considering releasing a Service Pack version. (Similarly as JBPM 3.2.6.SP1 was released after 3.2.6.GA)

       

       

      This Service Pack release could contain important bug fixes that are already completed and checked in for the upcoming 4.4 release. A lot of them would provide solution for issues that cause significant functional setback. (For example: Task definition does not have some properties set from jPDL task element; Jira JBPM-2560)


      Releasing an SP in a few weeks time and re-scheduling the remaining work to a separate release would also reduce the amount of code that has to be tested before the next major release. I think this would be a good solution for both the end-users and developers of JBPM.

       

      What do you think about this?

       

      Regards,
      Peter

        • 1. Re: Releasing a Service Pack version of JBPM 4.3 (JBPM-4.3.SP1)
          Ronald van Kuijk Master

          Peter,

           

          Some of the (imo) important issues have *not* been validated by the core defs. So besides the BPMN2 things there is more. 4.4 is indeed postponed, but afaik JBPM will not release sp's anymore. Instead, the BPMN2 issues would slip to a 4.5 release. So instead of putting additional effort in 4.3SP1, I'd put that time in 4.4.

           

          Informally I've read somewhere that 4.4 is due mid april now. Ofcourse you are always free to create your own release ;-)

           

          Cheers,

           

          Ronald