Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Gwt-openlayers-devl] [Gwt-openlayers-users] GWT-OpenLayersv0.5, let's please do a release...
|
From: Andrew H. <ahh...@gm...> - 2010-09-15 15:22:34
|
UPDATE: The remaining known bug blocking the 0.5 release has been fixed (changeset 322<http://gwt-openlayers.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/gwt-openlayers/gwt-openlayers/rev/99c067afecb8>) (NOTE: this is NOT v1.0.0, one day we will get there :D) The plan... speak up if you don't like this.... But I will merge trac_ticket_48 prior to the release and I will close out the trac_ticket_48 branch. Speak up if this is not ok. Also, micouz's recent (default) changesets have been merged onto the trac_ticket_48 branch (so they too will be in the 0.5 release). All seems good to go, there's a small window for doco if anyone's keen. Edwin, would you like to propose a date? Cheers On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Couzic Mikael <mik...@gm...>wrote: > Well, it is true there has been many new features since 0.4, but I agree > with Lukas, version 1.0 carries a meaning of "Mission Accomplished" and > GWT-OpenLayers doesn't cover completely the API of OpenLayers yet. It's not > a big deal for us contributors, we have the development environment all set > and it's fast and easy (well, most of the time ^^) for us to just implement > what's missing when we need it, but a new user would expect a 1.0 version to > have all the functionnality he would get by coding directly to the JS API. > All in all, I don't think a 0.x version is problematic, I believe users > will look at the dynamism of the community more than the version numbers, > which are pretty much arbitrary after all. And the project doesn't look so > bad on ohloh.net : > http://www.ohloh.net/p/gwt-openlayers > > > 2010/9/13 Lukas Johansson <luk...@de...> > >> I agree with all that you say, but I also think that a 1.0 release would >> signal/give a promise that it’s a complete wrap of OpenLayers, which at >> least wasn’t true the last time I checked out the code (ended in me sending >> a path to the list with new features). Don’t get me wrong you all done a >> great job but a 1.0 release promises a lot, are gwt-ol really up for it yet? >> >> /Lukas >> >> >> >> >> >> *Från:* Andrew Hughes [mailto:ahh...@gm...] >> *Skickat:* den 13 september 2010 15:57 >> *Till:* gwt...@li... >> *Kopia:* gwt...@li... >> *Ämne:* Re: [Gwt-openlayers-users] [Gwt-openlayers-devl] >> GWT-OpenLayersv0.5, let's please do a release... >> >> >> >> Release is fast approaching, 1 minor issue remains but.... >> >> >> >> Would it seem feasible to have this released as v1.0.0 and not 0.5? >> GWT-OpenLayers is quite a mature and feature rich codebase now and I think >> the... >> >> >> >> MAJOR.FEATURE.BUG >> >> >> >> ....convention is far more suitable. >> >> >> >> I also think that the initial impression of a 0.x version indicates that >> the codebase is juvenile and lacks features - I don't believe that to be the >> case here :) >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Edwin Commandeur < >> com...@gm...> wrote: >> >> Hi Andrew, >> >> All for the better if you have progressed on #48. >> >> 12 months between releases is way too long indeed :( >> >> Greetings, >> Edwin >> >> >> On 18 August 2010 12:35, Andrew Hughes <ahh...@gm...> wrote: >> > Thanks Edwin, >> > I must confess I did more work on the #trac_ticket_48 branch - naughty >> me. >> > This was two things... >> > 1. I merged the default tip onto the branch (i.e. they are in sync) >> > 2. I added a heap of maven configuration for maven based releases, this >> is >> > something I would really like to do for 0.5.... get a proper release out >> the >> > door and into central. It will also make releasing much easier in the >> future >> > - hence we should look foward to major, minor AND bug fix releases :) >> 12 >> > months between releases with soooooo many new features, fixes e.t.c. is >> too >> > long :) >> > I'll push ahead and try and get this working asap. >> > Cheers :) >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Edwin Commandeur >> > <com...@gm...> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Andrew, >> >> >> >> You are absolutely right, that we should get out a 0.5 release. You >> >> should have the rights to do a release (or alpha release if you like), >> >> but I don't know if you would be okay to arrange the release. >> >> >> >> - panel control => +1 for move to 0.6 (all widget toolkits have >> >> toolbars that are far nicer than the Panel) >> >> - #48 => if you can merge this, I would be all for that! >> >> - other enhancements => +1 for move to 0.6 >> >> >> >> Thanks for all the hard work you have already put into 0.5! >> >> >> >> Sorry for the low activity on my side lately. I hope to get things >> >> rolling again soon... >> >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> Edwin >> >> >> >> On 17 August 2010 08:35, Andrew Hughes <ahh...@gm...> wrote: >> >> > Hi All, >> >> > I'd like to propose that we try and get a new release of >> >> > gwt-openlayers. Unless I am mistaken the 0.4 tag was created 12 >> Months >> >> > ago >> >> > :O >> >> > According to trac 0.5 now has... 30 closed issues, 7 of which are >> >> > defects. >> >> > Remaining in 0.5.... >> >> > There are currently 6 Active tickets.... 5 enhancements, and one >> defect. >> >> > Ticket #41 "Panel Control Not Working" >> >> > - https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gwt-openlayers/ticket/41 >> >> > >> >> > I notice that Edwin changed the milestone from 0.5 to 0.6 and then >> back >> >> > to >> >> > 0.5... can this be moved onto 0.6? >> >> > >> >> > Ticket #48 "Project Identifies and Multi Module Maven >> >> > setup" https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gwt-openlayers/ticket/48 >> >> > >> >> > This work's been completed on the >> >> > >> >> > branch... >> http://gwt-openlayers.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/gwt-openlayers/gwt-openlayers/file/46f69b5f9bd5 >> it >> >> > has not been merged with the default/tip yet. I can merge this NOW if >> >> > people >> >> > want (it will help with the release too)? But if people don't want >> this >> >> > in >> >> > 0.5 I can also merge later (onto 0.6). I don't care either way 0.5 or >> >> > 0.6 >> >> > but I don't want 0.5 to get held up any longer. >> >> > >> >> > Ticket's #20, #51, #1, #13 are all enhancements and I don't believe >> they >> >> > should hold up a 0.5 release. Can we please move this into 0.6. >> >> > In summary.... Questions: >> >> > Should I merge down #48 to help with the (maven) release? >> >> > Can ticket #41, #48, #20, #51, #1, #13 be moved into 0.6 so that the >> 0.5 >> >> > release can go ahead? >> >> > If the answer is NO, then can I please do an alpha release... >> >> > 0.5-alpha1? >> >> > CHEERS :) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > This SF.net email is sponsored by >> >> > >> >> > Make an app they can't live without >> >> > Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge >> >> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Gwt-openlayers-devl mailing list >> >> > Gwt...@li... >> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gwt-openlayers-devl >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances >> and start using them to simplify application deployment and >> accelerate your shift to cloud computing >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gwt-openlayers-users mailing list >> >> Gwt...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gwt-openlayers-users >> >> > |
