You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> on 2008/01/02 15:11:27 UTC
R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding bug list
> [1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be fixed.
> I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some feature
> of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't obviously
> some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to apply this
> consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different lists. Non the
> less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others as I'm
> trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I can. I'm
> not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up for the
> remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So if you
> are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year please use
> this as a guide.
>
> In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to ensure 1.1.
> is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at this is
> if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release candidate in
> January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the (hopefully)
> straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process will raise
> more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal with also.
>
> Any thoughts about how we approach this?
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
>
>
As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy JIRA that
relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time round.
These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to either fix
or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any feedback on how
people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding.
Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut the
branch. In particular,
JMS
Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few
adjustments to make)
Some help with the Saxon dependency
This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet. However,
Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1 before
Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix but I
need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the branch
(once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend some time
fixing JIRA.
Thanks
Simon
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 3, 2008 3:09 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2008 6:37 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 2008 5:04 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 2, 2008 2:20 PM, ant elder < ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws < simonslaws@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding
> > bug
> > > > > list
> > > > > > [1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should
> > be
> > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of
> > some
> > > > > feature
> > > > > > of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't
> > > > obviously
> > > > > > some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to
> > > apply
> > > > > this
> > > > > > consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different
> > lists.
> > > > Non
> > > > > the
> > > > > > less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some
> > others as
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I
> > > can.
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > > are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year
> > > please
> > > > > use
> > > > > > this as a guide.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to
> > ensure
> > > > 1.1.
> > > > > > is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking
> > at
> > > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release
> > > > candidate
> > > > > in
> > > > > > January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the
> > > > > (hopefully)
> > > > > > straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process
> > > will
> > > > > raise
> > > > > > more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal
> > with
> > > > > also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any thoughts about how we approach this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy
> > JIRA
> > > > > that
> > > > > relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time
> > > round.
> > > > > These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to
> > either
> > > > fix
> > > > > or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any
> > feedback
> > > on
> > > > > how
> > > > > people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain
> > outstanding.
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially
> > cut
> > > the
> > > > > branch. In particular,
> > > > >
> > > > > JMS
> > > > > Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a
> > few
> > > > > adjustments to make)
> > > > > Some help with the Saxon dependency
> > > > >
> > > > > This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days
> > yet.
> > > > > However,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
> > > > > If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1before
> > > > > Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to
> > fix
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the
> > > branch
> > > > > (once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend
> > > some
> > > > > time
> > > > > fixing JIRA.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Does taking the branch have to wait for JMS? I'm a little behind so
> > it
> > > may
> > > > be a day or two before the binding is in a releasable state but the
> > > branch
> > > > could still happen now and I'll can just copy over any changes.
> > > >
> > > > ...ant
> > > >
> > > Ant
> > >
> > > Can I ask what version of Active MQ the new code will be using?
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
> >
> > Its on 4.1.1 presently but as 5.0 is the latest i'd been thinking about
> > moving up to that.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> OK, If we can get it working on the latest that sounds preferable assuming
> there if not lots of work involved.
>
> I haven't looked at the dependencies for 5.0 but for 4.1.1 there are some
> that it looks like we need to knock out, for example, jmdns-1.0-RC2.jarlooks a bit suspect as it appears to be LGPL. There are other licenses to
> check and also a load that may be optional that we can just remove.
>
> Nudge me if you make the change and I'll start looking at the new
> dependencies.
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
Actually i had a quick look at 5.0 and it seems easiest to stay on 4.1.1 for
now. With that the JMS binding just brings in the following new
dependency's:
activeio-core-3.0.0-incubator.jar
activemq-core-4.1.1.jar
backport-util-concurrent-2.1.jar
derby-10.1.2.1.jar
geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec-1.1.jar
geronimo-jms_1.1_spec-1.1.jar
...ant
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Jan 2, 2008 6:37 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 5:04 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 2008 2:20 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding
> bug
> > > > list
> > > > > [1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be
> > > > fixed.
> > > > > I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some
> > > > feature
> > > > > of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't
> > > obviously
> > > > > some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to
> > apply
> > > > this
> > > > > consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different
> lists.
> > > Non
> > > > the
> > > > > less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others
> as
> > > I'm
> > > > > trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I
> > can.
> > > > I'm
> > > > > not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up
> for
> > > the
> > > > > remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So
> if
> > > you
> > > > > are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year
> > please
> > > > use
> > > > > this as a guide.
> > > > >
> > > > > In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to
> ensure
> > > 1.1.
> > > > > is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release
> > > candidate
> > > > in
> > > > > January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the
> > > > (hopefully)
> > > > > straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process
> > will
> > > > raise
> > > > > more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal
> with
> > > > also.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any thoughts about how we approach this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy
> JIRA
> > > > that
> > > > relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time
> > round.
> > > > These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to
> either
> > > fix
> > > > or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any
> feedback
> > on
> > > > how
> > > > people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding.
> > > >
> > > > Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut
> > the
> > > > branch. In particular,
> > > >
> > > > JMS
> > > > Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few
> > > > adjustments to make)
> > > > Some help with the Saxon dependency
> > > >
> > > > This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet.
> > > > However,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
> > > > If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1before
> > > > Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
> > > >
> > > > Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix
> > but
> > > I
> > > > need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the
> > branch
> > > > (once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend
> > some
> > > > time
> > > > fixing JIRA.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does taking the branch have to wait for JMS? I'm a little behind so it
> > may
> > > be a day or two before the binding is in a releasable state but the
> > branch
> > > could still happen now and I'll can just copy over any changes.
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> > Ant
> >
> > Can I ask what version of Active MQ the new code will be using?
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
>
> Its on 4.1.1 presently but as 5.0 is the latest i'd been thinking about
> moving up to that.
>
> ...ant
>
OK, If we can get it working on the latest that sounds preferable assuming
there if not lots of work involved.
I haven't looked at the dependencies for 5.0 but for 4.1.1 there are some
that it looks like we need to knock out, for example,
jmdns-1.0-RC2.jarlooks a bit suspect as it appears to be LGPL. There
are other licenses to
check and also a load that may be optional that we can just remove.
Nudge me if you make the change and I'll start looking at the new
dependencies.
Regards
Simon
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Jan 2, 2008 5:04 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 2:20 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding bug
> > > list
> > > > [1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be
> > > fixed.
> > > > I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some
> > > feature
> > > > of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't
> > obviously
> > > > some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to
> apply
> > > this
> > > > consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different lists.
> > Non
> > > the
> > > > less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others as
> > I'm
> > > > trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I
> can.
> > > I'm
> > > > not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up for
> > the
> > > > remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So if
> > you
> > > > are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year
> please
> > > use
> > > > this as a guide.
> > > >
> > > > In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to ensure
> > 1.1.
> > > > is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at
> > this
> > > is
> > > > if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release
> > candidate
> > > in
> > > > January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the
> > > (hopefully)
> > > > straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process
> will
> > > raise
> > > > more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal with
> > > also.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts about how we approach this?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy JIRA
> > > that
> > > relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time
> round.
> > > These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to either
> > fix
> > > or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any feedback
> on
> > > how
> > > people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding.
> > >
> > > Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut
> the
> > > branch. In particular,
> > >
> > > JMS
> > > Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few
> > > adjustments to make)
> > > Some help with the Saxon dependency
> > >
> > > This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet.
> > > However,
> > >
> > >
> > > Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
> > > If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1 before
> > > Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
> > >
> > > Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix
> but
> > I
> > > need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the
> branch
> > > (once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend
> some
> > > time
> > > fixing JIRA.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
> > Does taking the branch have to wait for JMS? I'm a little behind so it
> may
> > be a day or two before the binding is in a releasable state but the
> branch
> > could still happen now and I'll can just copy over any changes.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> Ant
>
> Can I ask what version of Active MQ the new code will be using?
>
> Simon
>
Its on 4.1.1 presently but as 5.0 is the latest i'd been thinking about
moving up to that.
...ant
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Jan 2, 2008 2:20 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding bug
> > list
> > > [1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be
> > fixed.
> > > I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some
> > feature
> > > of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't
> obviously
> > > some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to apply
> > this
> > > consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different lists.
> Non
> > the
> > > less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others as
> I'm
> > > trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I can.
> > I'm
> > > not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up for
> the
> > > remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So if
> you
> > > are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year please
> > use
> > > this as a guide.
> > >
> > > In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to ensure
> 1.1.
> > > is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at
> this
> > is
> > > if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release
> candidate
> > in
> > > January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the
> > (hopefully)
> > > straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process will
> > raise
> > > more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal with
> > also.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts about how we approach this?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > > [1]
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > >
> > >
> >
> > As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy JIRA
> > that
> > relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time round.
> > These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to either
> fix
> > or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any feedback on
> > how
> > people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding.
> >
> > Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut the
> > branch. In particular,
> >
> > JMS
> > Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few
> > adjustments to make)
> > Some help with the Saxon dependency
> >
> > This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet.
> > However,
> >
> >
> > Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
> > If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1 before
> > Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
> >
> > Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix but
> I
> > need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the branch
> > (once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend some
> > time
> > fixing JIRA.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
> Does taking the branch have to wait for JMS? I'm a little behind so it may
> be a day or two before the binding is in a releasable state but the branch
> could still happen now and I'll can just copy over any changes.
>
> ...ant
>
Ant
Can I ask what version of Active MQ the new code will be using?
Simon
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Jan 2, 2008 4:06 PM, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> Apologies for the long delay in responding to this.
>
> I am concerned about the number of significant JIRAs that are open
> against the current trunk code. I have been working on two of these
> that I consider to be "must fix" for 1.1. They are TUSCANY-1849 and
> TUSCANY-1939. I have a fix for TUSCANY-1939 that is ready to commit
> today, and I will then turn my attention to TUSCANY-1849. After I
> have committed a fix for this, I will look at Simon's list and resolve
> as many of the others as I can before 1.1 is frozen.
>
> Simon
>
> ant elder wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding bug
> >>
> >>list
> >>
> >>>[1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be
> >>
> >>fixed.
> >>
> >>>I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some
> >>
> >>feature
> >>
> >>>of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't
> obviously
> >>>some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to apply
> >>
> >>this
> >>
> >>>consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different lists.
> Non
> >>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others as
> I'm
> >>>trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I can.
> >>
> >>I'm
> >>
> >>>not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up for
> the
> >>>remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So if you
> >>>are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year please
> >>
> >>use
> >>
> >>>this as a guide.
> >>>
> >>>In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to ensure 1.1
> .
> >>>is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at this
> >>
> >>is
> >>
> >>>if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release candidate
> >>
> >>in
> >>
> >>>January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the
> >>
> >>(hopefully)
> >>
> >>>straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process will
> >>
> >>raise
> >>
> >>>more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal with
> >>
> >>also.
> >>
> >>>Any thoughts about how we approach this?
> >>>
> >>>Regards
> >>>
> >>>Simon
> >>>
> >>>[1]
> >>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> >>
> >>>
> >>As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy JIRA
> >>that
> >>relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time round.
> >>These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to either
> fix
> >>or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any feedback on
> >>how
> >>people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding.
> >>
> >>Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut the
> >>branch. In particular,
> >>
> >>JMS
> >>Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few
> >>adjustments to make)
> >>Some help with the Saxon dependency
> >>
> >>This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet.
> >>However,
> >>
> >>
> >>Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
> >>If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1 before
> >>Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
> >>
> >>Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix but
> I
> >>need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the branch
> >>(once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend some
> >>time
> >>fixing JIRA.
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >>
> >>Simon
> >>
> >
> >
> > Does taking the branch have to wait for JMS? I'm a little behind so it
> may
> > be a day or two before the binding is in a releasable state but the
> branch
> > could still happen now and I'll can just copy over any changes.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
> OK, I don't see any advantage of freezing it now while people are still
working on 1.1 items in trunk.
If there is anyone working on, or planning working on, non 1.1 items in
trunk then please speak up now because that will force me to freeze sooner
rather than later.
I suggest we review where we are again on Friday.
Any more comments on JIRA?
Simon
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
Apologies for the long delay in responding to this.
I am concerned about the number of significant JIRAs that are open
against the current trunk code. I have been working on two of these
that I consider to be "must fix" for 1.1. They are TUSCANY-1849 and
TUSCANY-1939. I have a fix for TUSCANY-1939 that is ready to commit
today, and I will then turn my attention to TUSCANY-1849. After I
have committed a fix for this, I will look at Simon's list and resolve
as many of the others as I can before 1.1 is frozen.
Simon
ant elder wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding bug
>>
>>list
>>
>>>[1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be
>>
>>fixed.
>>
>>>I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some
>>
>>feature
>>
>>>of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't obviously
>>>some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to apply
>>
>>this
>>
>>>consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different lists. Non
>>
>>the
>>
>>>less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others as I'm
>>>trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I can.
>>
>>I'm
>>
>>>not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up for the
>>>remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So if you
>>>are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year please
>>
>>use
>>
>>>this as a guide.
>>>
>>>In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to ensure 1.1.
>>>is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at this
>>
>>is
>>
>>>if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release candidate
>>
>>in
>>
>>>January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the
>>
>>(hopefully)
>>
>>>straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process will
>>
>>raise
>>
>>>more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal with
>>
>>also.
>>
>>>Any thoughts about how we approach this?
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>Simon
>>>
>>>[1]
>>
>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
>>
>>>
>>As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy JIRA
>>that
>>relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time round.
>>These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to either fix
>>or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any feedback on
>>how
>>people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding.
>>
>>Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut the
>>branch. In particular,
>>
>>JMS
>>Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few
>>adjustments to make)
>>Some help with the Saxon dependency
>>
>>This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet.
>>However,
>>
>>
>>Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
>>If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1 before
>>Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
>>
>>Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix but I
>>need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the branch
>>(once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend some
>>time
>>fixing JIRA.
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Simon
>>
>
>
> Does taking the branch have to wait for JMS? I'm a little behind so it may
> be a day or two before the binding is in a releasable state but the branch
> could still happen now and I'll can just copy over any changes.
>
> ...ant
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding bug
> list
> > [1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be
> fixed.
> > I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some
> feature
> > of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't obviously
> > some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to apply
> this
> > consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different lists. Non
> the
> > less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others as I'm
> > trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I can.
> I'm
> > not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up for the
> > remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So if you
> > are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year please
> use
> > this as a guide.
> >
> > In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to ensure 1.1.
> > is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at this
> is
> > if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release candidate
> in
> > January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the
> (hopefully)
> > straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process will
> raise
> > more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal with
> also.
> >
> > Any thoughts about how we approach this?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> >
> >
>
> As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy JIRA
> that
> relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time round.
> These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to either fix
> or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any feedback on
> how
> people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding.
>
> Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut the
> branch. In particular,
>
> JMS
> Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few
> adjustments to make)
> Some help with the Saxon dependency
>
> This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet.
> However,
>
>
> Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
> If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1 before
> Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
>
> Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix but I
> need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the branch
> (once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend some
> time
> fixing JIRA.
>
> Thanks
>
> Simon
>
Does taking the branch have to wait for JMS? I'm a little behind so it may
be a day or two before the binding is in a releasable state but the branch
could still happen now and I'll can just copy over any changes.
...ant
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Jan 4, 2008 3:36 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2008 3:14 PM, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Simon Laws wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 3, 2008 11:40 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>On Jan 3, 2008 5:20 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino < jsdelfino@apache.org>
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >><snip>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Don't worry about spending time changing the version numbers in
> > trunk, I
> > >>>can do that for you, just tell me when I can do it after you've cut
> > the
> > >>>branch.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Right, I'm also happy to help and I expect others are as well, just
> > list
> > >>out
> > >>things that need to get done.
> > >>
> > >> ...ant
> > >>
> > >
> > > OK, thanks everyone for the offers. It's just gone midday in the UK.
> > I'm
> > > doing some builds now with a view to taking the branch shortly. I'm
> > seeing a
> > > few issues so it won't happen for a little while yet. I'll post again
> > just
> > > before I do but if anyone is just about to check in changes to trunk
> > let me
> > > know.
> > >
> > > I've made a few domain changes to revert some of the things I put in
> > for the
> > > deep integration. Just about to check in. I've done it in trunk to
> > force
> > > us/me to revisit quickly as it's over complicated and, as Ant has been
> > > pointing out, the runtime story needs more thought. It will break the
> > tomcat
> > > deep integation for a while. Apologies.
> > >
> > What does this mean for 1.1? Will we have Tomcat deep integration
> > enabled
> > in that or not? I was hoping that it would be included.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> > Tomcat deep integration isn't in 1.1.
>
> Simon
>
Ok, so I have a clean build (finally) so I'll cut the 1.1. branch in 10 mins
or so unless someone shouts.
Simon
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Jan 4, 2008 3:14 PM, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Simon Laws wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 2008 11:40 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Jan 3, 2008 5:20 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Don't worry about spending time changing the version numbers in trunk,
> I
> >>>can do that for you, just tell me when I can do it after you've cut the
> >>>branch.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Right, I'm also happy to help and I expect others are as well, just list
> >>out
> >>things that need to get done.
> >>
> >> ...ant
> >>
> >
> > OK, thanks everyone for the offers. It's just gone midday in the UK. I'm
> > doing some builds now with a view to taking the branch shortly. I'm
> seeing a
> > few issues so it won't happen for a little while yet. I'll post again
> just
> > before I do but if anyone is just about to check in changes to trunk let
> me
> > know.
> >
> > I've made a few domain changes to revert some of the things I put in for
> the
> > deep integration. Just about to check in. I've done it in trunk to
> force
> > us/me to revisit quickly as it's over complicated and, as Ant has been
> > pointing out, the runtime story needs more thought. It will break the
> tomcat
> > deep integation for a while. Apologies.
> >
> What does this mean for 1.1? Will we have Tomcat deep integration enabled
> in that or not? I was hoping that it would be included.
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
> Tomcat deep integration isn't in 1.1.
Simon
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
Simon Laws wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 11:40 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Jan 3, 2008 5:20 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>Don't worry about spending time changing the version numbers in trunk, I
>>>can do that for you, just tell me when I can do it after you've cut the
>>>branch.
>>>
>>
>>Right, I'm also happy to help and I expect others are as well, just list
>>out
>>things that need to get done.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> OK, thanks everyone for the offers. It's just gone midday in the UK. I'm
> doing some builds now with a view to taking the branch shortly. I'm seeing a
> few issues so it won't happen for a little while yet. I'll post again just
> before I do but if anyone is just about to check in changes to trunk let me
> know.
>
> I've made a few domain changes to revert some of the things I put in for the
> deep integration. Just about to check in. I've done it in trunk to force
> us/me to revisit quickly as it's over complicated and, as Ant has been
> pointing out, the runtime story needs more thought. It will break the tomcat
> deep integation for a while. Apologies.
>
What does this mean for 1.1? Will we have Tomcat deep integration enabled
in that or not? I was hoping that it would be included.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Jan 3, 2008 11:40 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 5:20 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > Don't worry about spending time changing the version numbers in trunk, I
> > can do that for you, just tell me when I can do it after you've cut the
> > branch.
> >
>
> Right, I'm also happy to help and I expect others are as well, just list
> out
> things that need to get done.
>
> ...ant
>
OK, thanks everyone for the offers. It's just gone midday in the UK. I'm
doing some builds now with a view to taking the branch shortly. I'm seeing a
few issues so it won't happen for a little while yet. I'll post again just
before I do but if anyone is just about to check in changes to trunk let me
know.
I've made a few domain changes to revert some of the things I put in for the
deep integration. Just about to check in. I've done it in trunk to force
us/me to revisit quickly as it's over complicated and, as Ant has been
pointing out, the runtime story needs more thought. It will break the tomcat
deep integation for a while. Apologies.
Simon
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 3, 2008 5:20 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
<snip>
> Don't worry about spending time changing the version numbers in trunk, I
> can do that for you, just tell me when I can do it after you've cut the
> branch.
>
Right, I'm also happy to help and I expect others are as well, just list out
things that need to get done.
...ant
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Jan 3, 2008 9:22 PM, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
>
> (cut)
> >>>>
> >>>> OK, It seems generally that people want me to cut the branch sooner
> >>>
> >>> rather
> >>> than later.
> >>>
> >>> So assuming we get the build funnies that have cropped up today
> >>> sorted out
> >>> and everyone is happy to duplicate further change from trunk to
> branch,
> >>> can
> >>> I suggest that I cut the branch Friday (tomorrow) morning UK.
> >>>
> >>> This will mean changing the pom versions in trunk. Does
> >>> 1.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT sound OK?
> >>>
> >>> I would then look to have an RC1 for review early next week.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Simon
> >>>
> >>
> >> +1, could drag on for ages unless the release branch is taken.
> >>
> >> ...ant
> >>
> >
> > +1 for cutting the branch tomorrow.
> >
> > Don't worry about spending time changing the version numbers in trunk, I
> > can do that for you, just tell me when I can do it after you've cut the
> > branch.
> >
> I am still working on the fix for TUSCANY-1849 and I'm not sure that
> it will be complete and tested by Friday morning UK time. If I miss
> the cut-off, I'll have to make this fix in the branch as well as trunk.
> Can you check with me on the status of this fix before you create the
> branch, please?
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
> Yes, of course.
Simon
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
(cut)
>>>>
>>>> OK, It seems generally that people want me to cut the branch sooner
>>>
>>> rather
>>> than later.
>>>
>>> So assuming we get the build funnies that have cropped up today
>>> sorted out
>>> and everyone is happy to duplicate further change from trunk to branch,
>>> can
>>> I suggest that I cut the branch Friday (tomorrow) morning UK.
>>>
>>> This will mean changing the pom versions in trunk. Does
>>> 1.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT sound OK?
>>>
>>> I would then look to have an RC1 for review early next week.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> +1, could drag on for ages unless the release branch is taken.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> +1 for cutting the branch tomorrow.
>
> Don't worry about spending time changing the version numbers in trunk, I
> can do that for you, just tell me when I can do it after you've cut the
> branch.
>
I am still working on the fix for TUSCANY-1849 and I'm not sure that
it will be complete and tested by Friday morning UK time. If I miss
the cut-off, I'll have to make this fix in the branch as well as trunk.
Can you check with me on the status of this fix before you create the
branch, please?
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
ant elder wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 2:56 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 2, 2008 10:34 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Laws wrote:
>>>> On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding bug
>>> list
>>>>> [1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be
>>> fixed.
>>>>> I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some
>>> feature
>>>>> of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't
>>> obviously
>>>>> some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to
>> apply
>>> this
>>>>> consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different lists.
>>> Non the
>>>>> less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others as
>>> I'm
>>>>> trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I can.
>>> I'm
>>>>> not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up for
>>> the
>>>>> remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So if
>> you
>>>>> are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year
>> please
>>> use
>>>>> this as a guide.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to ensure
>> 1.1
>>> .
>>>>> is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at
>> this
>>> is
>>>>> if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release
>> candidate
>>> in
>>>>> January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the
>>> (hopefully)
>>>>> straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process will
>>> raise
>>>>> more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal with
>>> also.
>>>>> Any thoughts about how we approach this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
>>>>>
>>>> As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy JIRA
>>> that
>>>> relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time
>> round.
>>>> These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to either
>>> fix
>>>> or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any feedback
>> on
>>> how
>>>> people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding.
>>>>
>>>> Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut
>> the
>>>> branch. In particular,
>>>>
>>>> JMS
>>>> Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few
>>>> adjustments to make)
>>>> Some help with the Saxon dependency
>>>>
>>>> This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet.
>>> However,
>>>>
>>>> Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
>>>> If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1 before
>>>> Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
>>>>
>>>> Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix
>> but
>>> I
>>>> need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the
>> branch
>>>> (once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend
>> some
>>> time
>>>> fixing JIRA.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>> +1 to go ahead and cut a branch as soon as possible, there are JIRAs
>>> open, but there will be more releases too. I want to do minor clean up
>>> of the getting started sample for 1.1 but I guess that can miss the
>>> branch.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Sebastien
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>>
>>> OK, It seems generally that people want me to cut the branch sooner
>> rather
>> than later.
>>
>> So assuming we get the build funnies that have cropped up today sorted out
>> and everyone is happy to duplicate further change from trunk to branch,
>> can
>> I suggest that I cut the branch Friday (tomorrow) morning UK.
>>
>> This will mean changing the pom versions in trunk. Does
>> 1.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT sound OK?
>>
>> I would then look to have an RC1 for review early next week.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> +1, could drag on for ages unless the release branch is taken.
>
> ...ant
>
+1 for cutting the branch tomorrow.
Don't worry about spending time changing the version numbers in trunk, I
can do that for you, just tell me when I can do it after you've cut the
branch.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 3, 2008 2:56 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 10:34 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Simon Laws wrote:
> > > On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding bug
> > list
> > >> [1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be
> > fixed.
> > >> I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some
> > feature
> > >> of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't
> > obviously
> > >> some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to
> apply
> > this
> > >> consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different lists.
> > Non the
> > >> less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others as
> > I'm
> > >> trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I can.
> > I'm
> > >> not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up for
> > the
> > >> remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So if
> you
> > >> are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year
> please
> > use
> > >> this as a guide.
> > >>
> > >> In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to ensure
> 1.1
> > .
> > >> is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at
> this
> > is
> > >> if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release
> candidate
> > in
> > >> January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the
> > (hopefully)
> > >> straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process will
> > raise
> > >> more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal with
> > also.
> > >>
> > >> Any thoughts about how we approach this?
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >>
> > >> Simon
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy JIRA
> > that
> > > relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time
> round.
> > > These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to either
> > fix
> > > or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any feedback
> on
> > how
> > > people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding.
> > >
> > > Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut
> the
> > > branch. In particular,
> > >
> > > JMS
> > > Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few
> > > adjustments to make)
> > > Some help with the Saxon dependency
> > >
> > > This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet.
> > However,
> > >
> > >
> > > Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
> > > If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1 before
> > > Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
> > >
> > > Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix
> but
> > I
> > > need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the
> branch
> > > (once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend
> some
> > time
> > > fixing JIRA.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
> > +1 to go ahead and cut a branch as soon as possible, there are JIRAs
> > open, but there will be more releases too. I want to do minor clean up
> > of the getting started sample for 1.1 but I guess that can miss the
> > branch.
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Sebastien
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> > OK, It seems generally that people want me to cut the branch sooner
> rather
> than later.
>
> So assuming we get the build funnies that have cropped up today sorted out
> and everyone is happy to duplicate further change from trunk to branch,
> can
> I suggest that I cut the branch Friday (tomorrow) morning UK.
>
> This will mean changing the pom versions in trunk. Does
> 1.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT sound OK?
>
> I would then look to have an RC1 for review early next week.
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
+1, could drag on for ages unless the release branch is taken.
...ant
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Jan 2, 2008 10:34 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Simon Laws wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding bug
> list
> >> [1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be
> fixed.
> >> I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some
> feature
> >> of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't
> obviously
> >> some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to apply
> this
> >> consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different lists.
> Non the
> >> less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others as
> I'm
> >> trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I can.
> I'm
> >> not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up for
> the
> >> remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So if you
> >> are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year please
> use
> >> this as a guide.
> >>
> >> In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to ensure 1.1
> .
> >> is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at this
> is
> >> if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release candidate
> in
> >> January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the
> (hopefully)
> >> straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process will
> raise
> >> more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal with
> also.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts about how we approach this?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> >>
> >>
> >
> > As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy JIRA
> that
> > relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time round.
> > These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to either
> fix
> > or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any feedback on
> how
> > people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding.
> >
> > Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut the
> > branch. In particular,
> >
> > JMS
> > Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few
> > adjustments to make)
> > Some help with the Saxon dependency
> >
> > This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet.
> However,
> >
> >
> > Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
> > If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1 before
> > Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
> >
> > Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix but
> I
> > need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the branch
> > (once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend some
> time
> > fixing JIRA.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
> +1 to go ahead and cut a branch as soon as possible, there are JIRAs
> open, but there will be more releases too. I want to do minor clean up
> of the getting started sample for 1.1 but I guess that can miss the
> branch.
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
> OK, It seems generally that people want me to cut the branch sooner rather
than later.
So assuming we get the build funnies that have cropped up today sorted out
and everyone is happy to duplicate further change from trunk to branch, can
I suggest that I cut the branch Friday (tomorrow) morning UK.
This will mean changing the pom versions in trunk. Does
1.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT sound OK?
I would then look to have an RC1 for review early next week.
Regards
Simon
Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Simon Laws wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding bug list
>> [1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be fixed.
>> I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some feature
>> of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't obviously
>> some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to apply this
>> consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different lists. Non the
>> less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others as I'm
>> trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I can. I'm
>> not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up for the
>> remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So if you
>> are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year please use
>> this as a guide.
>>
>> In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to ensure 1.1.
>> is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at this is
>> if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release candidate in
>> January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the (hopefully)
>> straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process will raise
>> more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal with also.
>>
>> Any thoughts about how we approach this?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
>>
>>
>
> As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy JIRA that
> relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time round.
> These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to either fix
> or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any feedback on how
> people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding.
>
> Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut the
> branch. In particular,
>
> JMS
> Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few
> adjustments to make)
> Some help with the Saxon dependency
>
> This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet. However,
>
>
> Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
> If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1 before
> Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
>
> Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix but I
> need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the branch
> (once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend some time
> fixing JIRA.
>
> Thanks
>
> Simon
>
+1 to go ahead and cut a branch as soon as possible, there are JIRAs
open, but there will be more releases too. I want to do minor clean up
of the getting started sample for 1.1 but I guess that can miss the branch.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org