[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Evergreen 2.0 branch / Alpha 1 release

[James Fournie]

Hi Bill,

Could you clarify what happened to OpenSRF 1.4?  Does it work with a
specific version of Evergreen?  Is it just a development release?

~James


On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Bill Erickson <erickson at esilibrary.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I believe the time has come to give 2.0 its own development branch in the
> Evergreen repository.  The serials merge from last week (special thanks to
> Dan Wells and Lebbeous for that) was the last big hurdle.  The purpose of
> the branch is to give 2.0 a safe place to solidify while more experimental
> features continue to stream into trunk.  In addition, I'd like to propose
> that we cut a 2.0.0 Alpha release for community review and feedback.  It
> will have some rough edges, of course, but I think it will be nice to get
> eyes on the software.
>
> These are some tasks that come to mind.  I'm not the release guru, though,
> so I'm mainly listing these for clarity.  We can change to suit:
>
> * Create the rel_2_0 parent branch.  FWIW, I don't see a strong need to
> create the rel_2_0_0 branch just yet, since it will be equivalent to rel_2_0
> until we cut the 2.0.0.x release.
> * Create a rel_2_0_0_alpha1 tag, from which the first Alpha release will be
> generated.
> * Create a 2.0.0 Alpha 1 installation bundle and staff client build
> * Create the OpenSRF rel_1_6 branch / cut OpenSRF 1.6.0 (as previously
> discussed)
>
> The first three points assume we maintain the current branch/tag/release
> naming scheme.  There have been discussions, primarily in IRC, about moving
> to a 3-part naming scheme, like OpenSRF (e.g. the release would be called
> Evergreen 2.0.0 instead of 2.0.0.0).  Is this still up for debate?  If so,
> the alpha testing phase is the time to decide either way, since the next
> planet alignment occurs at 3.0.  (I'm not suggesting we suspend the Alpha to
> debate this, just that we put it to bed before the first 2.0 release is
> cut).
>
> We are investigating the construction of a 1.6.1.x to 2.0 SQL upgrade
> script.  It will be.. fun, I'm sure ;)  I can't promise we'll have anything
> this week.  Is testing the 1.6.1.x -> 2.0 SQL upgrade critical for the first
> alpha cut?  I'm thinking no.
>
> Assuming general agreement on these points, I'd like to aim for having an
> alpha release or, at minimum, the branching and tagging, done by the end of
> this week.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -b
>
> --
> Bill Erickson
> | VP, Software Development & Integration
> | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
> | phone: 877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
> | email: erickson at esilibrary.com
> | web: http://esilibrary.com
>