Skip to main content

Hudson hits 1.300

Posted by kohsuke on April 22, 2009 at 7:21 AM PDT

Hudson has reached version 1.300 last Friday. While it's not like this release is fundamentally different from any other past releases, it does feel like it is some kind of a milestone.

The community continues to grow. We have around 1500 human-generated e-mails per month nowadays, with 7500/wk or so downloads of hudson.war. Access to the update center is increasing steadily last time I checked (although I don't have the numbers right now.) There are 137 plugins right now and 120 committers, and according to my JavaOne 2008 slides, that's up from 50+ and 50+ each in June 2008. We've added many user visible features, such as update center, better Windows integrations, load average monitoring on a cluster, preventive failed node detection in a cluster, and so on. There are improvements in areas that's not so visible, too, such as a new modern mechanism for plugins to define/implement extension points, or more convention-over-configuration to reduce the amount of Jelly coding you'd have to do. IDE plugins for authoring Hudson plugins have improved, too, and relevant Maven mojos that we write contains a lot more error diagnostics to assist the plugin developers. Oh, and last but certainly not least, much better test coverage.

So thank you for all the contributers (and if you'd like to become one you just need to tell us so — our commit access is open to almost anyone), and thank you for all the users who continue to guide us and help us make the project better.

Hudson has recently adopted a new release model, which involves reduced release frequency (of once a week, so it's still not too infrequent) and longer soaking period via a release branching. So in this pace, 1.400 will be about 2 years from now.

BTW, this somewhat unusual linear version numbering scheme reflects the train model of releases — each release contains fixes and features that are available at that time, and the trunk is kept usuable almost all the time. If I call it 1.2.99 instead of 1.299, I'd create a false impression that somehow 1.2.99 -> 1.3.0 is a far more significant update than 1.2.98 to 1.2.99.

Related Topics >>