ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Xavier Hanin" <>
Subject Is our objective for 2.0 too ambitious? (was Re: Ivy 2.0 planning)
Date Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:55:58 GMT
More than one month ago we agreed to focus on bug fixing for 2.0 final (see
my original mail below).
At that time we had about 80+ issues targeted at 2.0.
Since then it seems we have fixed 57 issues:

But we still have 64 issues to fix, which shows that new issues comes up (or
some where retargeted or created to detail issues being fixed).

This leads me to one question: is our objective to fix all open bugs for 2.0
too ambitious? I'm not sure I'll have much time to dedicate to Ivy in the
coming months, I don't know for you guys, but maybe this objective will lead
us to a delayed release. At the end of the month Ivy 1.0 will be 3 years old
(1.0 was released on April 26th, 2005), almost half of those three years
were spent @ ASF, with no final release.

I think Ivy community need a release labelled as final no later than may or
june, and I'm not sure we can reach this with our current objective.

So, what do you think? Shall we reconsider our objective for 2.0, and
retarget some of the issues for a 2.0.x?


On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Xavier Hanin <>

> Hi,
> Ivy 2.0 beta 2 being around the corner, I've reviewed some of the current
> open issues in JIRA. I've marked all open bugs to be fixed in 2.0, as I
> would like to make 2.0 final as stable and clean as possible. I even think
> that fixing bugs should be our main focus now toward 2.0 final. The current
> feature set is pretty good, so if we don't want to dilute too much our
> effort and the time frame for 2.0 final, I think focusing on bug fix is a
> good option. I don't say we should stop developing features, sometimes we
> may have some needs or specific interest in some new features. Moreover
> fixing bugs is not the most entertaining thing to do, so we'll probably need
> some rest with more interesting stuff :-).
> So, do you guys agree with this plan?
> Xavier
> --
> Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant

Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message