You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@river.apache.org by Peter Firmstone <ji...@zeus.net.au> on 2010/01/05 23:16:47 UTC
Re: Apache River Release - Version 2.2.0 or 2.1.2?
Thanks Mark,
We need people like yourself to watch the list and provide some guidance
when you can.
We had a discussion about it earlier, I'd like to get this release out,
I'm holding back commits that depend on Java 5 language features.
Jonathan made a similar comment about the release versioning earlier, if
someone wants to make that change, then now is the time to do so.
Does anyone have any objection to the use of version 2.1.2 instead of
version 2.2.0?
Cheers,
Peter.
> This release includes a new package and integrated testing, so I'd say
> it's safe to go for the 2.2
>
>
>
> The org.apache.river namechange will cause some breakage, so it's safe
> to call it 3.0, 3.0 will include some java 5 constructs also.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Peter.
>
>
>
> Jonathan Costers wrote:
>
>> Actually, when I carefully read the posted definitions, what we are
>>
>> about to release really more looks like a point release...
>>
>>
>>
>> So 2.1.2?
>>
>>
>>
>> And when we do the com.sun.jini -> org.apache.river namechange, move to
>>
>> 2.2?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just a thought..
>>
>>
>>
>> Op zondag 04-10-2009 om 21:42 uur [tijdzone +1000], schreef Peter
>>
>> Firmstone:
>>
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan Costers wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What about this:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Previous release was 2.1.1 (AR1).
>>>>
>>>> -> apache-river-2.1.1-incubating
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - We are developing for 2.2, hence all Hudson builds are named
>>>>
>>>> 2.2-SNAPSHOT
>>>>
>>>> -> apache-river-2.2-SNAPSHOT-incubating
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - When we release 2.2 (AR2) we change version to 2.2
>>>>
>>>> -> apache-river-2.2-incubating
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - After building 2.2, we set version to 2.2.1-SNAPSHOT (or whatever
>>>>
>>>> version we decide we should go to after 2.2)
>>>>
>>>> -> apache-river-2.2.1-SNAPSHOT-incubating
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This would be compatible with Maven repositories, allowing us to
>>>> publish
>>>>
>>>> all snapshot builds. It would IMHO also make more sense then what
>>>> we are
>>>>
>>>> doing now (i.e. all snapshot builds are currently still named 2.1.1).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Op zaterdag 03-10-2009 om 15:24 uur [tijdzone +1000], schreef Peter
>>>>
>>>> Firmstone:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, how about the following release version scheme?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Major.Minor.Point
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Point Release: No API changes, bug fixes, internal implementation
>>>>>
>>>>> refactoring only.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Minor Release: Expanded API for existing packages, new utility
>>>>> packages,
>>>>>
>>>>> no breaking of API backward compatibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bug fixes, reimplementation or refactoring of
>>>>> existing
>>>>>
>>>>> API functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Major Release: New Features, Packages & API, where those API
>>>>> Changes could
>>>>>
>>>>> potentially break backward compatibility and
>>>>> require
>>>>>
>>>>> recompilation for existing applications.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not suggesting we break backward compatibility, just that if
>>>>> we do,
>>>>> it'll definitely be a major point release.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Mark Brouwer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not really following River closely these days due to a lack of time
> amongst other things although I'm a little bit busy with resurrecting
> the Cheiron project. However I was triggered by the subject.
>
> The release notes can be found here as all issues have been assigned to
> a certain release, in this case AR2:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12312604&styleName=Text&projectId=12310600&Create=Create
>
>
> You can include the list into the release notes or you can link
> to the web based one (the above). I noticed that most of the issues
> still needs to be closed as they are still in the resolved state.
>
> Although I refrain fom further opinions about whether to release or not,
> etc. I noticed 2 things.
>
> 1) the number of changes seems impressive, but most of them are fairly
> (although important) trivial fixes, clarifications and therefore I think
> it doesn't represent a 2.2.0 release, rather a 2.1.2 release.
>
> 2) I noticed the name Jini changed into River in all release notes
> documents, which is not correct, and not even consistent with the usage
> of Jini in the Javadoc, Specs, etc. It has been discussed in the past
> that River is an implementation of the Jini Specifications with
> additional stuff that people find interesting as part of the project,
> but maybe this opinion has changed since the first release in which case
> the initial committers have been sleeping, which is probably not far
> from the truth in River participation terms ;-)
>
> Maybe it would have been better if this wasn't committed directly but
> added to a JIRA issue for review, or with a little bit more time between
> the announcement and the actual action.
>
> Regards,
Re: Apache River Release - Version 2.2.0 or 2.1.2?
Posted by Peter Firmstone <ji...@zeus.net.au>.
Glad your still with us Jonathan, hope your dev box gets fixed soon ;-)
Your ray tracing example sounds interesting, more fun than hello world!
Cheers,
Peter.
Jonathan Costers wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Sorry I haven't been too active lately, but I am still watching river-dev as
> much as I can.
>
> For what it's worth, I think it would make more sense to go for 2.1.2 for
> the reasons mentioned before. However, I don't think this is very important
> ... Most important is that we have a new release with a bunch of
> changes/fixes!
>
> I don't believe it is much work to change from 2.2 to 2.1.2 (a small change
> in the build.xml file, plus some documentation updates).
> I'd do it myself, but my development machine recently died and I am waiting
> for it to be fixed. This is also the reason why I haven't committed anything
> lately (there are some things pending in my local workspace: the ray tracing
> example added to the project, several fixes/improvements to build.xml,
> several improvements to fix failing QA tests, etc.)
>
> Thanks Peter for getting stuff moving! We seem to be almost there.
>
> Best to all
> Jonathan
>
> 2010/1/5 Jeff Ramsdale <je...@gmail.com>
>
>
>> Not an objection. I wanted to express agreement about 2.1.2.
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Peter Firmstone <ji...@zeus.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Mark,
>>>
>>> We need people like yourself to watch the list and provide some guidance
>>> when you can.
>>>
>>> We had a discussion about it earlier, I'd like to get this release out,
>>>
>> I'm
>>
>>> holding back commits that depend on Java 5 language features.
>>>
>>> Jonathan made a similar comment about the release versioning earlier, if
>>> someone wants to make that change, then now is the time to do so.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any objection to the use of version 2.1.2 instead of
>>> version 2.2.0?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Peter.
>>>
>
>
Re: Apache River Release - Version 2.2.0 or 2.1.2?
Posted by Jonathan Costers <jo...@googlemail.com>.
Hi all
Sorry I haven't been too active lately, but I am still watching river-dev as
much as I can.
For what it's worth, I think it would make more sense to go for 2.1.2 for
the reasons mentioned before. However, I don't think this is very important
... Most important is that we have a new release with a bunch of
changes/fixes!
I don't believe it is much work to change from 2.2 to 2.1.2 (a small change
in the build.xml file, plus some documentation updates).
I'd do it myself, but my development machine recently died and I am waiting
for it to be fixed. This is also the reason why I haven't committed anything
lately (there are some things pending in my local workspace: the ray tracing
example added to the project, several fixes/improvements to build.xml,
several improvements to fix failing QA tests, etc.)
Thanks Peter for getting stuff moving! We seem to be almost there.
Best to all
Jonathan
2010/1/5 Jeff Ramsdale <je...@gmail.com>
> Not an objection. I wanted to express agreement about 2.1.2.
>
> -jeff
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Peter Firmstone <ji...@zeus.net.au> wrote:
> > Thanks Mark,
> >
> > We need people like yourself to watch the list and provide some guidance
> > when you can.
> >
> > We had a discussion about it earlier, I'd like to get this release out,
> I'm
> > holding back commits that depend on Java 5 language features.
> >
> > Jonathan made a similar comment about the release versioning earlier, if
> > someone wants to make that change, then now is the time to do so.
> >
> > Does anyone have any objection to the use of version 2.1.2 instead of
> > version 2.2.0?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Peter.
>
Re: Apache River Release - Version 2.2.0 or 2.1.2?
Posted by Jeff Ramsdale <je...@gmail.com>.
Not an objection. I wanted to express agreement about 2.1.2.
-jeff
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Peter Firmstone <ji...@zeus.net.au> wrote:
> Thanks Mark,
>
> We need people like yourself to watch the list and provide some guidance
> when you can.
>
> We had a discussion about it earlier, I'd like to get this release out, I'm
> holding back commits that depend on Java 5 language features.
>
> Jonathan made a similar comment about the release versioning earlier, if
> someone wants to make that change, then now is the time to do so.
>
> Does anyone have any objection to the use of version 2.1.2 instead of
> version 2.2.0?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter.