You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ossie.apache.org by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> on 2026/08/25 06:06:26 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] First Apache Ossie (incubating) releases
Hi everyone,
I would like to revive this thread as we need to move forward with our
first release. Getting a release out (at least the source
distribution) is a crucial milestone in our incubation process.
I propose we start with an initial release (potentially keeping the
current version for now) consisting solely of the source distribution.
This will allow us to verify the build process and the source
distribution artifacts.
Regarding the converters, I do not expect a high volume of them
initially, so we can manage independent releases for now. This
approach provides greater flexibility, avoiding the need for a full
project release when only a single converter requires a fix.
Additionally, even within a single release, we would still need
distinct release artifacts (like separate .whl files), so it is
important to separate the release process from the artifacts
themselves.
I will proceed with the release preparation prerequisites and keep
everyone updated.
Regards,
JB
On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 3:25 PM Will Pugh <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)" does this include the
> reference implementation? We currently don't have anything in the actually
> evaluates the Ossie spec. What about the compliance suite?
>
> I feel like those are important parts of a V1, and we should prioritize
> getting something in that people can use soon.
>
> Also, do we think an approach where there is a distribution per converter
> is scalable? In the case that we have 100 converters, we really want to
> create 100 different whls?
>
> --Will
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:10 PM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Sounds good. Thanks so much JB.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yong
> >
> > On 2026/07/29 05:30:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > > Hi Yong,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback. We actually discussed the release versioning
> > > during the first Ossie Community Meeting, and we are proposing to
> > > start with version 0.3.0 instead of 1.0.0.
> > >
> > > Regarding the ongoing issues you mentioned, we still have time to fix
> > > and improve those before the release. I have already done a large pass
> > > to rename "OSI" to "Ossie," and I have a couple of follow-up PRs
> > > coming, including one for Depenabot bot (I don't think we need
> > > renovatebot here, dependabot does the job).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:27 AM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello JB,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for bring this up on and leading this effort. I have following
> > concerns:
> > > >
> > > > On-going issues:
> > > > 1. There is one converter which has one issue with recent change (fix
> > purposed in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/263)
> > > > 2. We are using EOL Java for Polaris converter (fix purposed in
> > https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/278...I will start a diff email
> > thread to bump java to 21 instead as java 17 will be EOL soon as well)
> > > > 3. The existed validation script lacks testing and have one bug (fix
> > in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/271)
> > > >
> > > > General:
> > > > 1. We are still using OSI as oppose to Ossie all over the place,
> > should this be fix before first release?
> > > > 2. We are lacking of renovate bot to keep things up to date. If we
> > would be make this our first release, when will the next release be? Will
> > there be a chance which we would have releases that is full of CVEs due to
> > lack of renovate bot to keep things up to date?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yong Zheng
> > > >
> > > > On 2026/07/26 05:13:18 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to propose that we begin preparing for our initial
> > > > > releases, aiming for late August or early September.
> > > > >
> > > > > Specifically, I propose the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)
> > > > > This is our most important and strictly required release. As per
> > > > > ASF guidelines, every release must contain one or more source
> > packages
> > > > > sufficient for users to build and test the project, and should not
> > > > > contain compiled code. The Ossie source distribution will include the
> > > > > entire repository (converters, ontology, examples, ...).
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Binary Distributions for Converters
> > > > > For user convenience, I propose releasing a binary distribution
> > > > > for each converter (e.g., .whl, .jar, or .tar.gz, depending on the
> > > > > converter). These distributions will include the necessary
> > DISCLAIMER,
> > > > > LICENSE, and NOTICE files documenting the bundled content.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am currently working on the required legal improvements and fixes,
> > > > > particularly for the converters, and I volunteer to drive these
> > > > > releases.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > JB
> > > > >
> > >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] First Apache Ossie (incubating) releases
Posted by Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com>.
Hi Markus,
Thanks for the input. We discussed this briefly in the last community
sync [1], and similar to what you suggested, a release (including the
first one) does not need to wait for the 1.0 spec. An incremental
release like 0.3.0 is definitely preferable.
Best,
Yufei
1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/18lgmRAB4OOtVUPmQ5fFVpxqFS1oXRgQJTceZ0A_v8pw/edit?tab=t.0
On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 11:03 AM Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> +1 on the push for a first Apache release. In my day job, we are
> looking forward to it :)
>
> Do we need to align the 1.0 spec with the first release? From past
> incubators, I learned that building the muscle for releases is equally
> valuable to the technical agreement of a 1.0 release. Maybe we can do
> a 0.3 as an Apache Release?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Markus
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 4:51 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think it’s prudent, for the first few releases, to have a single release
> > of the whole repository. Convenience of making a bug-fix release of a
> > particular processor is a secondary concern. In ASF, a release is a legal
> > act, and people in incubator projects are often surprised how much red tape
> > is involved — checking that dependencies have appropriate licenses, making
> > sure that the tarball has appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files, and two
> > rounds of voting, each of which is at least 3 working days. If there is
> > something wrong with the tarball — and believe me, there will be — we
> > restart the whole process.
> >
> > For this project, it is a little concerning to me that the main deliverable
> > is a specification. The ASF releases software. The Apache License is much
> > better suited to software than to documents/specifications. The “meat” of
> > the release should therefore be software that you can run — compliance
> > tests and converters.
> >
> > If you are a PPMC member voting on the release, remember that you are
> > voting on the legal integrity of the tarball. Not on whether there are
> > bugs, or whether you agree with this version of the specification. Though
> > it’s certainly nice if, when the user downloads the tarball, they can
> > easily build and run the software.
> >
> > Julian (wearing my Incubator PMC member hat)
> >
> > On Aug 24, 2026, at 11:06 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to revive this thread as we need to move forward with our
> > first release. Getting a release out (at least the source
> > distribution) is a crucial milestone in our incubation process.
> >
> > I propose we start with an initial release (potentially keeping the
> > current version for now) consisting solely of the source distribution.
> > This will allow us to verify the build process and the source
> > distribution artifacts.
> >
> > Regarding the converters, I do not expect a high volume of them
> > initially, so we can manage independent releases for now. This
> > approach provides greater flexibility, avoiding the need for a full
> > project release when only a single converter requires a fix.
> > Additionally, even within a single release, we would still need
> > distinct release artifacts (like separate .whl files), so it is
> > important to separate the release process from the artifacts
> > themselves.
> >
> > I will proceed with the release preparation prerequisites and keep
> > everyone updated.
> >
> > Regards,
> > JB
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 3:25 PM Will Pugh <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)" does this include the
> > reference implementation? We currently don't have anything in the actually
> > evaluates the Ossie spec. What about the compliance suite?
> >
> > I feel like those are important parts of a V1, and we should prioritize
> > getting something in that people can use soon.
> >
> > Also, do we think an approach where there is a distribution per converter
> > is scalable? In the case that we have 100 converters, we really want to
> > create 100 different whls?
> >
> > --Will
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:10 PM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds good. Thanks so much JB.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yong
> >
> > On 2026/07/29 05:30:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> >
> > Hi Yong,
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback. We actually discussed the release versioning
> > during the first Ossie Community Meeting, and we are proposing to
> > start with version 0.3.0 instead of 1.0.0.
> >
> > Regarding the ongoing issues you mentioned, we still have time to fix
> > and improve those before the release. I have already done a large pass
> > to rename "OSI" to "Ossie," and I have a couple of follow-up PRs
> > coming, including one for Depenabot bot (I don't think we need
> > renovatebot here, dependabot does the job).
> >
> > Regards,
> > JB
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:27 AM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello JB,
> >
> > Thanks for bring this up on and leading this effort. I have following
> >
> > concerns:
> >
> >
> > On-going issues:
> > 1. There is one converter which has one issue with recent change (fix
> >
> > purposed in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/263)
> >
> > 2. We are using EOL Java for Polaris converter (fix purposed in
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/278...I will start a diff email
> > thread to bump java to 21 instead as java 17 will be EOL soon as well)
> >
> > 3. The existed validation script lacks testing and have one bug (fix
> >
> > in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/271)
> >
> >
> > General:
> > 1. We are still using OSI as oppose to Ossie all over the place,
> >
> > should this be fix before first release?
> >
> > 2. We are lacking of renovate bot to keep things up to date. If we
> >
> > would be make this our first release, when will the next release be? Will
> > there be a chance which we would have releases that is full of CVEs due to
> > lack of renovate bot to keep things up to date?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yong Zheng
> >
> > On 2026/07/26 05:13:18 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to propose that we begin preparing for our initial
> > releases, aiming for late August or early September.
> >
> > Specifically, I propose the following:
> >
> > 1. Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)
> > This is our most important and strictly required release. As per
> > ASF guidelines, every release must contain one or more source
> >
> > packages
> >
> > sufficient for users to build and test the project, and should not
> > contain compiled code. The Ossie source distribution will include the
> > entire repository (converters, ontology, examples, ...).
> >
> > 2. Binary Distributions for Converters
> > For user convenience, I propose releasing a binary distribution
> > for each converter (e.g., .whl, .jar, or .tar.gz, depending on the
> > converter). These distributions will include the necessary
> >
> > DISCLAIMER,
> >
> > LICENSE, and NOTICE files documenting the bundled content.
> >
> > I am currently working on the required legal improvements and fixes,
> > particularly for the converters, and I volunteer to drive these
> > releases.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Regards,
> > JB
Re: [DISCUSS] First Apache Ossie (incubating) releases
Posted by Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org>.
JB, let me know if you need help with the release mechanics. Thanks
for doing this! -- Markus
On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 11:52 AM Russell Spitzer
<ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would agree to just doing the source release as an exercise. Try not to
> put too much weight on it other than getting into the groove of license
> checking and release management.
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 11:03 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I don't think we should focus on 1.0 spec for the first release.
> > Instead I would focus on 0.3.0 (as we are on 0.2.0.dev now) with just
> > what we have currently.
> >
> > The purpose of this first release is also to verify the work we have
> > to do on the plumbing, do a full legal check, etc.
> >
> > So, I'm working on the first machinery for this first release,
> > providing only source distribution for now.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 8:03 PM Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > +1 on the push for a first Apache release. In my day job, we are
> > > looking forward to it :)
> > >
> > > Do we need to align the 1.0 spec with the first release? From past
> > > incubators, I learned that building the muscle for releases is equally
> > > valuable to the technical agreement of a 1.0 release. Maybe we can do
> > > a 0.3 as an Apache Release?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Markus
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 4:51 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think it’s prudent, for the first few releases, to have a single
> > release
> > > > of the whole repository. Convenience of making a bug-fix release of a
> > > > particular processor is a secondary concern. In ASF, a release is a
> > legal
> > > > act, and people in incubator projects are often surprised how much red
> > tape
> > > > is involved — checking that dependencies have appropriate licenses,
> > making
> > > > sure that the tarball has appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files, and two
> > > > rounds of voting, each of which is at least 3 working days. If there is
> > > > something wrong with the tarball — and believe me, there will be — we
> > > > restart the whole process.
> > > >
> > > > For this project, it is a little concerning to me that the main
> > deliverable
> > > > is a specification. The ASF releases software. The Apache License is
> > much
> > > > better suited to software than to documents/specifications. The “meat”
> > of
> > > > the release should therefore be software that you can run — compliance
> > > > tests and converters.
> > > >
> > > > If you are a PPMC member voting on the release, remember that you are
> > > > voting on the legal integrity of the tarball. Not on whether there are
> > > > bugs, or whether you agree with this version of the specification.
> > Though
> > > > it’s certainly nice if, when the user downloads the tarball, they can
> > > > easily build and run the software.
> > > >
> > > > Julian (wearing my Incubator PMC member hat)
> > > >
> > > > On Aug 24, 2026, at 11:06 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to revive this thread as we need to move forward with our
> > > > first release. Getting a release out (at least the source
> > > > distribution) is a crucial milestone in our incubation process.
> > > >
> > > > I propose we start with an initial release (potentially keeping the
> > > > current version for now) consisting solely of the source distribution.
> > > > This will allow us to verify the build process and the source
> > > > distribution artifacts.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the converters, I do not expect a high volume of them
> > > > initially, so we can manage independent releases for now. This
> > > > approach provides greater flexibility, avoiding the need for a full
> > > > project release when only a single converter requires a fix.
> > > > Additionally, even within a single release, we would still need
> > > > distinct release artifacts (like separate .whl files), so it is
> > > > important to separate the release process from the artifacts
> > > > themselves.
> > > >
> > > > I will proceed with the release preparation prerequisites and keep
> > > > everyone updated.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 3:25 PM Will Pugh <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)" does this include the
> > > > reference implementation? We currently don't have anything in the
> > actually
> > > > evaluates the Ossie spec. What about the compliance suite?
> > > >
> > > > I feel like those are important parts of a V1, and we should prioritize
> > > > getting something in that people can use soon.
> > > >
> > > > Also, do we think an approach where there is a distribution per
> > converter
> > > > is scalable? In the case that we have 100 converters, we really want
> > to
> > > > create 100 different whls?
> > > >
> > > > --Will
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:10 PM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good. Thanks so much JB.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yong
> > > >
> > > > On 2026/07/29 05:30:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Yong,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your feedback. We actually discussed the release versioning
> > > > during the first Ossie Community Meeting, and we are proposing to
> > > > start with version 0.3.0 instead of 1.0.0.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the ongoing issues you mentioned, we still have time to fix
> > > > and improve those before the release. I have already done a large pass
> > > > to rename "OSI" to "Ossie," and I have a couple of follow-up PRs
> > > > coming, including one for Depenabot bot (I don't think we need
> > > > renovatebot here, dependabot does the job).
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:27 AM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello JB,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for bring this up on and leading this effort. I have following
> > > >
> > > > concerns:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On-going issues:
> > > > 1. There is one converter which has one issue with recent change (fix
> > > >
> > > > purposed in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/263)
> > > >
> > > > 2. We are using EOL Java for Polaris converter (fix purposed in
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/278...I will start a diff email
> > > > thread to bump java to 21 instead as java 17 will be EOL soon as well)
> > > >
> > > > 3. The existed validation script lacks testing and have one bug (fix
> > > >
> > > > in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/271)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > General:
> > > > 1. We are still using OSI as oppose to Ossie all over the place,
> > > >
> > > > should this be fix before first release?
> > > >
> > > > 2. We are lacking of renovate bot to keep things up to date. If we
> > > >
> > > > would be make this our first release, when will the next release be?
> > Will
> > > > there be a chance which we would have releases that is full of CVEs
> > due to
> > > > lack of renovate bot to keep things up to date?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yong Zheng
> > > >
> > > > On 2026/07/26 05:13:18 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to propose that we begin preparing for our initial
> > > > releases, aiming for late August or early September.
> > > >
> > > > Specifically, I propose the following:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)
> > > > This is our most important and strictly required release. As per
> > > > ASF guidelines, every release must contain one or more source
> > > >
> > > > packages
> > > >
> > > > sufficient for users to build and test the project, and should not
> > > > contain compiled code. The Ossie source distribution will include the
> > > > entire repository (converters, ontology, examples, ...).
> > > >
> > > > 2. Binary Distributions for Converters
> > > > For user convenience, I propose releasing a binary distribution
> > > > for each converter (e.g., .whl, .jar, or .tar.gz, depending on the
> > > > converter). These distributions will include the necessary
> > > >
> > > > DISCLAIMER,
> > > >
> > > > LICENSE, and NOTICE files documenting the bundled content.
> > > >
> > > > I am currently working on the required legal improvements and fixes,
> > > > particularly for the converters, and I volunteer to drive these
> > > > releases.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > JB
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] First Apache Ossie (incubating) releases
Posted by Russell Spitzer <ru...@gmail.com>.
I would agree to just doing the source release as an exercise. Try not to
put too much weight on it other than getting into the groove of license
checking and release management.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 11:03 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I don't think we should focus on 1.0 spec for the first release.
> Instead I would focus on 0.3.0 (as we are on 0.2.0.dev now) with just
> what we have currently.
>
> The purpose of this first release is also to verify the work we have
> to do on the plumbing, do a full legal check, etc.
>
> So, I'm working on the first machinery for this first release,
> providing only source distribution for now.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 8:03 PM Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > +1 on the push for a first Apache release. In my day job, we are
> > looking forward to it :)
> >
> > Do we need to align the 1.0 spec with the first release? From past
> > incubators, I learned that building the muscle for releases is equally
> > valuable to the technical agreement of a 1.0 release. Maybe we can do
> > a 0.3 as an Apache Release?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Markus
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 4:51 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it’s prudent, for the first few releases, to have a single
> release
> > > of the whole repository. Convenience of making a bug-fix release of a
> > > particular processor is a secondary concern. In ASF, a release is a
> legal
> > > act, and people in incubator projects are often surprised how much red
> tape
> > > is involved — checking that dependencies have appropriate licenses,
> making
> > > sure that the tarball has appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files, and two
> > > rounds of voting, each of which is at least 3 working days. If there is
> > > something wrong with the tarball — and believe me, there will be — we
> > > restart the whole process.
> > >
> > > For this project, it is a little concerning to me that the main
> deliverable
> > > is a specification. The ASF releases software. The Apache License is
> much
> > > better suited to software than to documents/specifications. The “meat”
> of
> > > the release should therefore be software that you can run — compliance
> > > tests and converters.
> > >
> > > If you are a PPMC member voting on the release, remember that you are
> > > voting on the legal integrity of the tarball. Not on whether there are
> > > bugs, or whether you agree with this version of the specification.
> Though
> > > it’s certainly nice if, when the user downloads the tarball, they can
> > > easily build and run the software.
> > >
> > > Julian (wearing my Incubator PMC member hat)
> > >
> > > On Aug 24, 2026, at 11:06 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I would like to revive this thread as we need to move forward with our
> > > first release. Getting a release out (at least the source
> > > distribution) is a crucial milestone in our incubation process.
> > >
> > > I propose we start with an initial release (potentially keeping the
> > > current version for now) consisting solely of the source distribution.
> > > This will allow us to verify the build process and the source
> > > distribution artifacts.
> > >
> > > Regarding the converters, I do not expect a high volume of them
> > > initially, so we can manage independent releases for now. This
> > > approach provides greater flexibility, avoiding the need for a full
> > > project release when only a single converter requires a fix.
> > > Additionally, even within a single release, we would still need
> > > distinct release artifacts (like separate .whl files), so it is
> > > important to separate the release process from the artifacts
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > > I will proceed with the release preparation prerequisites and keep
> > > everyone updated.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 3:25 PM Will Pugh <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)" does this include the
> > > reference implementation? We currently don't have anything in the
> actually
> > > evaluates the Ossie spec. What about the compliance suite?
> > >
> > > I feel like those are important parts of a V1, and we should prioritize
> > > getting something in that people can use soon.
> > >
> > > Also, do we think an approach where there is a distribution per
> converter
> > > is scalable? In the case that we have 100 converters, we really want
> to
> > > create 100 different whls?
> > >
> > > --Will
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:10 PM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds good. Thanks so much JB.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yong
> > >
> > > On 2026/07/29 05:30:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Yong,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback. We actually discussed the release versioning
> > > during the first Ossie Community Meeting, and we are proposing to
> > > start with version 0.3.0 instead of 1.0.0.
> > >
> > > Regarding the ongoing issues you mentioned, we still have time to fix
> > > and improve those before the release. I have already done a large pass
> > > to rename "OSI" to "Ossie," and I have a couple of follow-up PRs
> > > coming, including one for Depenabot bot (I don't think we need
> > > renovatebot here, dependabot does the job).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:27 AM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello JB,
> > >
> > > Thanks for bring this up on and leading this effort. I have following
> > >
> > > concerns:
> > >
> > >
> > > On-going issues:
> > > 1. There is one converter which has one issue with recent change (fix
> > >
> > > purposed in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/263)
> > >
> > > 2. We are using EOL Java for Polaris converter (fix purposed in
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/278...I will start a diff email
> > > thread to bump java to 21 instead as java 17 will be EOL soon as well)
> > >
> > > 3. The existed validation script lacks testing and have one bug (fix
> > >
> > > in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/271)
> > >
> > >
> > > General:
> > > 1. We are still using OSI as oppose to Ossie all over the place,
> > >
> > > should this be fix before first release?
> > >
> > > 2. We are lacking of renovate bot to keep things up to date. If we
> > >
> > > would be make this our first release, when will the next release be?
> Will
> > > there be a chance which we would have releases that is full of CVEs
> due to
> > > lack of renovate bot to keep things up to date?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yong Zheng
> > >
> > > On 2026/07/26 05:13:18 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I would like to propose that we begin preparing for our initial
> > > releases, aiming for late August or early September.
> > >
> > > Specifically, I propose the following:
> > >
> > > 1. Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)
> > > This is our most important and strictly required release. As per
> > > ASF guidelines, every release must contain one or more source
> > >
> > > packages
> > >
> > > sufficient for users to build and test the project, and should not
> > > contain compiled code. The Ossie source distribution will include the
> > > entire repository (converters, ontology, examples, ...).
> > >
> > > 2. Binary Distributions for Converters
> > > For user convenience, I propose releasing a binary distribution
> > > for each converter (e.g., .whl, .jar, or .tar.gz, depending on the
> > > converter). These distributions will include the necessary
> > >
> > > DISCLAIMER,
> > >
> > > LICENSE, and NOTICE files documenting the bundled content.
> > >
> > > I am currently working on the required legal improvements and fixes,
> > > particularly for the converters, and I volunteer to drive these
> > > releases.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > JB
>
Re: [DISCUSS] First Apache Ossie (incubating) releases
Posted by Kurt Stirewalt <ku...@gmail.com>.
Hi JB and others,
As part of the 0.3.0 release, the ontology working group would like to
include this PR:
https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/332
which adds two optional fields to the ontology spec. If the community
accepts this change, then we will need to update the version numbers in the
PR.
As an aside, is there a more formal process for making requests like this,
and if so, could you please point me (and Scott, who submitted the PR
author) in the right direction? And more generally, as we schedule future
releases, is there a process in place for deciding which features under
review will be included? Maybe this is done informally for now in the
monthly community meetings?
Thanks,
Kurt
On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 12:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I don't think we should focus on 1.0 spec for the first release.
> Instead I would focus on 0.3.0 (as we are on 0.2.0.dev now) with just
> what we have currently.
>
> The purpose of this first release is also to verify the work we have
> to do on the plumbing, do a full legal check, etc.
>
> So, I'm working on the first machinery for this first release,
> providing only source distribution for now.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 8:03 PM Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > +1 on the push for a first Apache release. In my day job, we are
> > looking forward to it :)
> >
> > Do we need to align the 1.0 spec with the first release? From past
> > incubators, I learned that building the muscle for releases is equally
> > valuable to the technical agreement of a 1.0 release. Maybe we can do
> > a 0.3 as an Apache Release?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Markus
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 4:51 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it’s prudent, for the first few releases, to have a single
> release
> > > of the whole repository. Convenience of making a bug-fix release of a
> > > particular processor is a secondary concern. In ASF, a release is a
> legal
> > > act, and people in incubator projects are often surprised how much red
> tape
> > > is involved — checking that dependencies have appropriate licenses,
> making
> > > sure that the tarball has appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files, and two
> > > rounds of voting, each of which is at least 3 working days. If there is
> > > something wrong with the tarball — and believe me, there will be — we
> > > restart the whole process.
> > >
> > > For this project, it is a little concerning to me that the main
> deliverable
> > > is a specification. The ASF releases software. The Apache License is
> much
> > > better suited to software than to documents/specifications. The “meat”
> of
> > > the release should therefore be software that you can run — compliance
> > > tests and converters.
> > >
> > > If you are a PPMC member voting on the release, remember that you are
> > > voting on the legal integrity of the tarball. Not on whether there are
> > > bugs, or whether you agree with this version of the specification.
> Though
> > > it’s certainly nice if, when the user downloads the tarball, they can
> > > easily build and run the software.
> > >
> > > Julian (wearing my Incubator PMC member hat)
> > >
> > > On Aug 24, 2026, at 11:06 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I would like to revive this thread as we need to move forward with our
> > > first release. Getting a release out (at least the source
> > > distribution) is a crucial milestone in our incubation process.
> > >
> > > I propose we start with an initial release (potentially keeping the
> > > current version for now) consisting solely of the source distribution.
> > > This will allow us to verify the build process and the source
> > > distribution artifacts.
> > >
> > > Regarding the converters, I do not expect a high volume of them
> > > initially, so we can manage independent releases for now. This
> > > approach provides greater flexibility, avoiding the need for a full
> > > project release when only a single converter requires a fix.
> > > Additionally, even within a single release, we would still need
> > > distinct release artifacts (like separate .whl files), so it is
> > > important to separate the release process from the artifacts
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > > I will proceed with the release preparation prerequisites and keep
> > > everyone updated.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 3:25 PM Will Pugh <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)" does this include the
> > > reference implementation? We currently don't have anything in the
> actually
> > > evaluates the Ossie spec. What about the compliance suite?
> > >
> > > I feel like those are important parts of a V1, and we should prioritize
> > > getting something in that people can use soon.
> > >
> > > Also, do we think an approach where there is a distribution per
> converter
> > > is scalable? In the case that we have 100 converters, we really want
> to
> > > create 100 different whls?
> > >
> > > --Will
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:10 PM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds good. Thanks so much JB.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yong
> > >
> > > On 2026/07/29 05:30:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Yong,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback. We actually discussed the release versioning
> > > during the first Ossie Community Meeting, and we are proposing to
> > > start with version 0.3.0 instead of 1.0.0.
> > >
> > > Regarding the ongoing issues you mentioned, we still have time to fix
> > > and improve those before the release. I have already done a large pass
> > > to rename "OSI" to "Ossie," and I have a couple of follow-up PRs
> > > coming, including one for Depenabot bot (I don't think we need
> > > renovatebot here, dependabot does the job).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:27 AM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello JB,
> > >
> > > Thanks for bring this up on and leading this effort. I have following
> > >
> > > concerns:
> > >
> > >
> > > On-going issues:
> > > 1. There is one converter which has one issue with recent change (fix
> > >
> > > purposed in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/263)
> > >
> > > 2. We are using EOL Java for Polaris converter (fix purposed in
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/278...I will start a diff email
> > > thread to bump java to 21 instead as java 17 will be EOL soon as well)
> > >
> > > 3. The existed validation script lacks testing and have one bug (fix
> > >
> > > in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/271)
> > >
> > >
> > > General:
> > > 1. We are still using OSI as oppose to Ossie all over the place,
> > >
> > > should this be fix before first release?
> > >
> > > 2. We are lacking of renovate bot to keep things up to date. If we
> > >
> > > would be make this our first release, when will the next release be?
> Will
> > > there be a chance which we would have releases that is full of CVEs
> due to
> > > lack of renovate bot to keep things up to date?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yong Zheng
> > >
> > > On 2026/07/26 05:13:18 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I would like to propose that we begin preparing for our initial
> > > releases, aiming for late August or early September.
> > >
> > > Specifically, I propose the following:
> > >
> > > 1. Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)
> > > This is our most important and strictly required release. As per
> > > ASF guidelines, every release must contain one or more source
> > >
> > > packages
> > >
> > > sufficient for users to build and test the project, and should not
> > > contain compiled code. The Ossie source distribution will include the
> > > entire repository (converters, ontology, examples, ...).
> > >
> > > 2. Binary Distributions for Converters
> > > For user convenience, I propose releasing a binary distribution
> > > for each converter (e.g., .whl, .jar, or .tar.gz, depending on the
> > > converter). These distributions will include the necessary
> > >
> > > DISCLAIMER,
> > >
> > > LICENSE, and NOTICE files documenting the bundled content.
> > >
> > > I am currently working on the required legal improvements and fixes,
> > > particularly for the converters, and I volunteer to drive these
> > > releases.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > JB
>
Re: [DISCUSS] First Apache Ossie (incubating) releases
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi
I don't think we should focus on 1.0 spec for the first release.
Instead I would focus on 0.3.0 (as we are on 0.2.0.dev now) with just
what we have currently.
The purpose of this first release is also to verify the work we have
to do on the plumbing, do a full legal check, etc.
So, I'm working on the first machinery for this first release,
providing only source distribution for now.
Regards
JB
On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 8:03 PM Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> +1 on the push for a first Apache release. In my day job, we are
> looking forward to it :)
>
> Do we need to align the 1.0 spec with the first release? From past
> incubators, I learned that building the muscle for releases is equally
> valuable to the technical agreement of a 1.0 release. Maybe we can do
> a 0.3 as an Apache Release?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Markus
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 4:51 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think it’s prudent, for the first few releases, to have a single release
> > of the whole repository. Convenience of making a bug-fix release of a
> > particular processor is a secondary concern. In ASF, a release is a legal
> > act, and people in incubator projects are often surprised how much red tape
> > is involved — checking that dependencies have appropriate licenses, making
> > sure that the tarball has appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files, and two
> > rounds of voting, each of which is at least 3 working days. If there is
> > something wrong with the tarball — and believe me, there will be — we
> > restart the whole process.
> >
> > For this project, it is a little concerning to me that the main deliverable
> > is a specification. The ASF releases software. The Apache License is much
> > better suited to software than to documents/specifications. The “meat” of
> > the release should therefore be software that you can run — compliance
> > tests and converters.
> >
> > If you are a PPMC member voting on the release, remember that you are
> > voting on the legal integrity of the tarball. Not on whether there are
> > bugs, or whether you agree with this version of the specification. Though
> > it’s certainly nice if, when the user downloads the tarball, they can
> > easily build and run the software.
> >
> > Julian (wearing my Incubator PMC member hat)
> >
> > On Aug 24, 2026, at 11:06 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to revive this thread as we need to move forward with our
> > first release. Getting a release out (at least the source
> > distribution) is a crucial milestone in our incubation process.
> >
> > I propose we start with an initial release (potentially keeping the
> > current version for now) consisting solely of the source distribution.
> > This will allow us to verify the build process and the source
> > distribution artifacts.
> >
> > Regarding the converters, I do not expect a high volume of them
> > initially, so we can manage independent releases for now. This
> > approach provides greater flexibility, avoiding the need for a full
> > project release when only a single converter requires a fix.
> > Additionally, even within a single release, we would still need
> > distinct release artifacts (like separate .whl files), so it is
> > important to separate the release process from the artifacts
> > themselves.
> >
> > I will proceed with the release preparation prerequisites and keep
> > everyone updated.
> >
> > Regards,
> > JB
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 3:25 PM Will Pugh <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)" does this include the
> > reference implementation? We currently don't have anything in the actually
> > evaluates the Ossie spec. What about the compliance suite?
> >
> > I feel like those are important parts of a V1, and we should prioritize
> > getting something in that people can use soon.
> >
> > Also, do we think an approach where there is a distribution per converter
> > is scalable? In the case that we have 100 converters, we really want to
> > create 100 different whls?
> >
> > --Will
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:10 PM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds good. Thanks so much JB.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yong
> >
> > On 2026/07/29 05:30:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> >
> > Hi Yong,
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback. We actually discussed the release versioning
> > during the first Ossie Community Meeting, and we are proposing to
> > start with version 0.3.0 instead of 1.0.0.
> >
> > Regarding the ongoing issues you mentioned, we still have time to fix
> > and improve those before the release. I have already done a large pass
> > to rename "OSI" to "Ossie," and I have a couple of follow-up PRs
> > coming, including one for Depenabot bot (I don't think we need
> > renovatebot here, dependabot does the job).
> >
> > Regards,
> > JB
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:27 AM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello JB,
> >
> > Thanks for bring this up on and leading this effort. I have following
> >
> > concerns:
> >
> >
> > On-going issues:
> > 1. There is one converter which has one issue with recent change (fix
> >
> > purposed in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/263)
> >
> > 2. We are using EOL Java for Polaris converter (fix purposed in
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/278...I will start a diff email
> > thread to bump java to 21 instead as java 17 will be EOL soon as well)
> >
> > 3. The existed validation script lacks testing and have one bug (fix
> >
> > in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/271)
> >
> >
> > General:
> > 1. We are still using OSI as oppose to Ossie all over the place,
> >
> > should this be fix before first release?
> >
> > 2. We are lacking of renovate bot to keep things up to date. If we
> >
> > would be make this our first release, when will the next release be? Will
> > there be a chance which we would have releases that is full of CVEs due to
> > lack of renovate bot to keep things up to date?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yong Zheng
> >
> > On 2026/07/26 05:13:18 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to propose that we begin preparing for our initial
> > releases, aiming for late August or early September.
> >
> > Specifically, I propose the following:
> >
> > 1. Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)
> > This is our most important and strictly required release. As per
> > ASF guidelines, every release must contain one or more source
> >
> > packages
> >
> > sufficient for users to build and test the project, and should not
> > contain compiled code. The Ossie source distribution will include the
> > entire repository (converters, ontology, examples, ...).
> >
> > 2. Binary Distributions for Converters
> > For user convenience, I propose releasing a binary distribution
> > for each converter (e.g., .whl, .jar, or .tar.gz, depending on the
> > converter). These distributions will include the necessary
> >
> > DISCLAIMER,
> >
> > LICENSE, and NOTICE files documenting the bundled content.
> >
> > I am currently working on the required legal improvements and fixes,
> > particularly for the converters, and I volunteer to drive these
> > releases.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Regards,
> > JB
Re: [DISCUSS] First Apache Ossie (incubating) releases
Posted by Markus Weimer <we...@apache.org>.
Hi,
+1 on the push for a first Apache release. In my day job, we are
looking forward to it :)
Do we need to align the 1.0 spec with the first release? From past
incubators, I learned that building the muscle for releases is equally
valuable to the technical agreement of a 1.0 release. Maybe we can do
a 0.3 as an Apache Release?
Thanks,
Markus
On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 4:51 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I think it’s prudent, for the first few releases, to have a single release
> of the whole repository. Convenience of making a bug-fix release of a
> particular processor is a secondary concern. In ASF, a release is a legal
> act, and people in incubator projects are often surprised how much red tape
> is involved — checking that dependencies have appropriate licenses, making
> sure that the tarball has appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files, and two
> rounds of voting, each of which is at least 3 working days. If there is
> something wrong with the tarball — and believe me, there will be — we
> restart the whole process.
>
> For this project, it is a little concerning to me that the main deliverable
> is a specification. The ASF releases software. The Apache License is much
> better suited to software than to documents/specifications. The “meat” of
> the release should therefore be software that you can run — compliance
> tests and converters.
>
> If you are a PPMC member voting on the release, remember that you are
> voting on the legal integrity of the tarball. Not on whether there are
> bugs, or whether you agree with this version of the specification. Though
> it’s certainly nice if, when the user downloads the tarball, they can
> easily build and run the software.
>
> Julian (wearing my Incubator PMC member hat)
>
> On Aug 24, 2026, at 11:06 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to revive this thread as we need to move forward with our
> first release. Getting a release out (at least the source
> distribution) is a crucial milestone in our incubation process.
>
> I propose we start with an initial release (potentially keeping the
> current version for now) consisting solely of the source distribution.
> This will allow us to verify the build process and the source
> distribution artifacts.
>
> Regarding the converters, I do not expect a high volume of them
> initially, so we can manage independent releases for now. This
> approach provides greater flexibility, avoiding the need for a full
> project release when only a single converter requires a fix.
> Additionally, even within a single release, we would still need
> distinct release artifacts (like separate .whl files), so it is
> important to separate the release process from the artifacts
> themselves.
>
> I will proceed with the release preparation prerequisites and keep
> everyone updated.
>
> Regards,
> JB
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 3:25 PM Will Pugh <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)" does this include the
> reference implementation? We currently don't have anything in the actually
> evaluates the Ossie spec. What about the compliance suite?
>
> I feel like those are important parts of a V1, and we should prioritize
> getting something in that people can use soon.
>
> Also, do we think an approach where there is a distribution per converter
> is scalable? In the case that we have 100 converters, we really want to
> create 100 different whls?
>
> --Will
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:10 PM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Sounds good. Thanks so much JB.
>
> Thanks,
> Yong
>
> On 2026/07/29 05:30:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi Yong,
>
> Thanks for your feedback. We actually discussed the release versioning
> during the first Ossie Community Meeting, and we are proposing to
> start with version 0.3.0 instead of 1.0.0.
>
> Regarding the ongoing issues you mentioned, we still have time to fix
> and improve those before the release. I have already done a large pass
> to rename "OSI" to "Ossie," and I have a couple of follow-up PRs
> coming, including one for Depenabot bot (I don't think we need
> renovatebot here, dependabot does the job).
>
> Regards,
> JB
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:27 AM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hello JB,
>
> Thanks for bring this up on and leading this effort. I have following
>
> concerns:
>
>
> On-going issues:
> 1. There is one converter which has one issue with recent change (fix
>
> purposed in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/263)
>
> 2. We are using EOL Java for Polaris converter (fix purposed in
>
> https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/278...I will start a diff email
> thread to bump java to 21 instead as java 17 will be EOL soon as well)
>
> 3. The existed validation script lacks testing and have one bug (fix
>
> in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/271)
>
>
> General:
> 1. We are still using OSI as oppose to Ossie all over the place,
>
> should this be fix before first release?
>
> 2. We are lacking of renovate bot to keep things up to date. If we
>
> would be make this our first release, when will the next release be? Will
> there be a chance which we would have releases that is full of CVEs due to
> lack of renovate bot to keep things up to date?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Yong Zheng
>
> On 2026/07/26 05:13:18 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to propose that we begin preparing for our initial
> releases, aiming for late August or early September.
>
> Specifically, I propose the following:
>
> 1. Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)
> This is our most important and strictly required release. As per
> ASF guidelines, every release must contain one or more source
>
> packages
>
> sufficient for users to build and test the project, and should not
> contain compiled code. The Ossie source distribution will include the
> entire repository (converters, ontology, examples, ...).
>
> 2. Binary Distributions for Converters
> For user convenience, I propose releasing a binary distribution
> for each converter (e.g., .whl, .jar, or .tar.gz, depending on the
> converter). These distributions will include the necessary
>
> DISCLAIMER,
>
> LICENSE, and NOTICE files documenting the bundled content.
>
> I am currently working on the required legal improvements and fixes,
> particularly for the converters, and I volunteer to drive these
> releases.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> JB
Re: [DISCUSS] First Apache Ossie (incubating) releases
Posted by Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>.
I think it’s prudent, for the first few releases, to have a single release
of the whole repository. Convenience of making a bug-fix release of a
particular processor is a secondary concern. In ASF, a release is a legal
act, and people in incubator projects are often surprised how much red tape
is involved — checking that dependencies have appropriate licenses, making
sure that the tarball has appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files, and two
rounds of voting, each of which is at least 3 working days. If there is
something wrong with the tarball — and believe me, there will be — we
restart the whole process.
For this project, it is a little concerning to me that the main deliverable
is a specification. The ASF releases software. The Apache License is much
better suited to software than to documents/specifications. The “meat” of
the release should therefore be software that you can run — compliance
tests and converters.
If you are a PPMC member voting on the release, remember that you are
voting on the legal integrity of the tarball. Not on whether there are
bugs, or whether you agree with this version of the specification. Though
it’s certainly nice if, when the user downloads the tarball, they can
easily build and run the software.
Julian (wearing my Incubator PMC member hat)
On Aug 24, 2026, at 11:06 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I would like to revive this thread as we need to move forward with our
first release. Getting a release out (at least the source
distribution) is a crucial milestone in our incubation process.
I propose we start with an initial release (potentially keeping the
current version for now) consisting solely of the source distribution.
This will allow us to verify the build process and the source
distribution artifacts.
Regarding the converters, I do not expect a high volume of them
initially, so we can manage independent releases for now. This
approach provides greater flexibility, avoiding the need for a full
project release when only a single converter requires a fix.
Additionally, even within a single release, we would still need
distinct release artifacts (like separate .whl files), so it is
important to separate the release process from the artifacts
themselves.
I will proceed with the release preparation prerequisites and keep
everyone updated.
Regards,
JB
On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 3:25 PM Will Pugh <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)" does this include the
reference implementation? We currently don't have anything in the actually
evaluates the Ossie spec. What about the compliance suite?
I feel like those are important parts of a V1, and we should prioritize
getting something in that people can use soon.
Also, do we think an approach where there is a distribution per converter
is scalable? In the case that we have 100 converters, we really want to
create 100 different whls?
--Will
On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:10 PM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
Sounds good. Thanks so much JB.
Thanks,
Yong
On 2026/07/29 05:30:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi Yong,
Thanks for your feedback. We actually discussed the release versioning
during the first Ossie Community Meeting, and we are proposing to
start with version 0.3.0 instead of 1.0.0.
Regarding the ongoing issues you mentioned, we still have time to fix
and improve those before the release. I have already done a large pass
to rename "OSI" to "Ossie," and I have a couple of follow-up PRs
coming, including one for Depenabot bot (I don't think we need
renovatebot here, dependabot does the job).
Regards,
JB
On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:27 AM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
Hello JB,
Thanks for bring this up on and leading this effort. I have following
concerns:
On-going issues:
1. There is one converter which has one issue with recent change (fix
purposed in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/263)
2. We are using EOL Java for Polaris converter (fix purposed in
https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/278...I will start a diff email
thread to bump java to 21 instead as java 17 will be EOL soon as well)
3. The existed validation script lacks testing and have one bug (fix
in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/271)
General:
1. We are still using OSI as oppose to Ossie all over the place,
should this be fix before first release?
2. We are lacking of renovate bot to keep things up to date. If we
would be make this our first release, when will the next release be? Will
there be a chance which we would have releases that is full of CVEs due to
lack of renovate bot to keep things up to date?
Thanks,
Yong Zheng
On 2026/07/26 05:13:18 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi everyone,
I would like to propose that we begin preparing for our initial
releases, aiming for late August or early September.
Specifically, I propose the following:
1. Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)
This is our most important and strictly required release. As per
ASF guidelines, every release must contain one or more source
packages
sufficient for users to build and test the project, and should not
contain compiled code. The Ossie source distribution will include the
entire repository (converters, ontology, examples, ...).
2. Binary Distributions for Converters
For user convenience, I propose releasing a binary distribution
for each converter (e.g., .whl, .jar, or .tar.gz, depending on the
converter). These distributions will include the necessary
DISCLAIMER,
LICENSE, and NOTICE files documenting the bundled content.
I am currently working on the required legal improvements and fixes,
particularly for the converters, and I volunteer to drive these
releases.
Thoughts?
Regards,
JB
Re: [DISCUSS] First Apache Ossie (incubating) releases
Posted by Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com>.
+1 on completing the rename from OSI to Ossie.
Yufei
On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 6:08 PM Yong Zheng <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Should we merge https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/288 before first
> release?
>
> Thanks,
> Yong
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 7:35 PM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for bringing this up, JB!
> >
> > Only the source distribution makes sense to me, given that we haven't
> > figured out the approach for releasing different converters. The source
> > distribution will suffice for the spec. We can figure out the converter
> > release in next release, either consolidate them or move them out to
> > separated repo, in which case, the release in the main repo will only
> have
> > the spec.
> >
> > Regarding the current version, which version are you referring to?
> > 0.2.0.dev0
> > or 0.3.0?
> >
> > Yufei
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 11:06 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I would like to revive this thread as we need to move forward with our
> > > first release. Getting a release out (at least the source
> > > distribution) is a crucial milestone in our incubation process.
> > >
> > > I propose we start with an initial release (potentially keeping the
> > > current version for now) consisting solely of the source distribution.
> > > This will allow us to verify the build process and the source
> > > distribution artifacts.
> > >
> > > Regarding the converters, I do not expect a high volume of them
> > > initially, so we can manage independent releases for now. This
> > > approach provides greater flexibility, avoiding the need for a full
> > > project release when only a single converter requires a fix.
> > > Additionally, even within a single release, we would still need
> > > distinct release artifacts (like separate .whl files), so it is
> > > important to separate the release process from the artifacts
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > > I will proceed with the release preparation prerequisites and keep
> > > everyone updated.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 3:25 PM Will Pugh <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)" does this include the
> > > > reference implementation? We currently don't have anything in the
> > > actually
> > > > evaluates the Ossie spec. What about the compliance suite?
> > > >
> > > > I feel like those are important parts of a V1, and we should
> prioritize
> > > > getting something in that people can use soon.
> > > >
> > > > Also, do we think an approach where there is a distribution per
> > converter
> > > > is scalable? In the case that we have 100 converters, we really want
> > to
> > > > create 100 different whls?
> > > >
> > > > --Will
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:10 PM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sounds good. Thanks so much JB.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Yong
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2026/07/29 05:30:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Yong,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your feedback. We actually discussed the release
> > > versioning
> > > > > > during the first Ossie Community Meeting, and we are proposing to
> > > > > > start with version 0.3.0 instead of 1.0.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding the ongoing issues you mentioned, we still have time to
> > fix
> > > > > > and improve those before the release. I have already done a large
> > > pass
> > > > > > to rename "OSI" to "Ossie," and I have a couple of follow-up PRs
> > > > > > coming, including one for Depenabot bot (I don't think we need
> > > > > > renovatebot here, dependabot does the job).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > JB
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:27 AM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello JB,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for bring this up on and leading this effort. I have
> > > following
> > > > > concerns:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On-going issues:
> > > > > > > 1. There is one converter which has one issue with recent
> change
> > > (fix
> > > > > purposed in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/263)
> > > > > > > 2. We are using EOL Java for Polaris converter (fix purposed in
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/278...I will start a diff
> email
> > > > > thread to bump java to 21 instead as java 17 will be EOL soon as
> > well)
> > > > > > > 3. The existed validation script lacks testing and have one bug
> > > (fix
> > > > > in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/271)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > General:
> > > > > > > 1. We are still using OSI as oppose to Ossie all over the
> place,
> > > > > should this be fix before first release?
> > > > > > > 2. We are lacking of renovate bot to keep things up to date. If
> > we
> > > > > would be make this our first release, when will the next release
> be?
> > > Will
> > > > > there be a chance which we would have releases that is full of CVEs
> > > due to
> > > > > lack of renovate bot to keep things up to date?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Yong Zheng
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2026/07/26 05:13:18 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to propose that we begin preparing for our
> initial
> > > > > > > > releases, aiming for late August or early September.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Specifically, I propose the following:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)
> > > > > > > > This is our most important and strictly required release.
> > As
> > > per
> > > > > > > > ASF guidelines, every release must contain one or more source
> > > > > packages
> > > > > > > > sufficient for users to build and test the project, and
> should
> > > not
> > > > > > > > contain compiled code. The Ossie source distribution will
> > > include the
> > > > > > > > entire repository (converters, ontology, examples, ...).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. Binary Distributions for Converters
> > > > > > > > For user convenience, I propose releasing a binary
> > > distribution
> > > > > > > > for each converter (e.g., .whl, .jar, or .tar.gz, depending
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > > > converter). These distributions will include the necessary
> > > > > DISCLAIMER,
> > > > > > > > LICENSE, and NOTICE files documenting the bundled content.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am currently working on the required legal improvements and
> > > fixes,
> > > > > > > > particularly for the converters, and I volunteer to drive
> these
> > > > > > > > releases.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > JB
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] First Apache Ossie (incubating) releases
Posted by Yong Zheng <yo...@gmail.com>.
Hello all,
Should we merge https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/288 before first
release?
Thanks,
Yong
On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 7:35 PM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up, JB!
>
> Only the source distribution makes sense to me, given that we haven't
> figured out the approach for releasing different converters. The source
> distribution will suffice for the spec. We can figure out the converter
> release in next release, either consolidate them or move them out to
> separated repo, in which case, the release in the main repo will only have
> the spec.
>
> Regarding the current version, which version are you referring to?
> 0.2.0.dev0
> or 0.3.0?
>
> Yufei
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 11:06 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to revive this thread as we need to move forward with our
> > first release. Getting a release out (at least the source
> > distribution) is a crucial milestone in our incubation process.
> >
> > I propose we start with an initial release (potentially keeping the
> > current version for now) consisting solely of the source distribution.
> > This will allow us to verify the build process and the source
> > distribution artifacts.
> >
> > Regarding the converters, I do not expect a high volume of them
> > initially, so we can manage independent releases for now. This
> > approach provides greater flexibility, avoiding the need for a full
> > project release when only a single converter requires a fix.
> > Additionally, even within a single release, we would still need
> > distinct release artifacts (like separate .whl files), so it is
> > important to separate the release process from the artifacts
> > themselves.
> >
> > I will proceed with the release preparation prerequisites and keep
> > everyone updated.
> >
> > Regards,
> > JB
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 3:25 PM Will Pugh <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)" does this include the
> > > reference implementation? We currently don't have anything in the
> > actually
> > > evaluates the Ossie spec. What about the compliance suite?
> > >
> > > I feel like those are important parts of a V1, and we should prioritize
> > > getting something in that people can use soon.
> > >
> > > Also, do we think an approach where there is a distribution per
> converter
> > > is scalable? In the case that we have 100 converters, we really want
> to
> > > create 100 different whls?
> > >
> > > --Will
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:10 PM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sounds good. Thanks so much JB.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yong
> > > >
> > > > On 2026/07/29 05:30:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > > > > Hi Yong,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your feedback. We actually discussed the release
> > versioning
> > > > > during the first Ossie Community Meeting, and we are proposing to
> > > > > start with version 0.3.0 instead of 1.0.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the ongoing issues you mentioned, we still have time to
> fix
> > > > > and improve those before the release. I have already done a large
> > pass
> > > > > to rename "OSI" to "Ossie," and I have a couple of follow-up PRs
> > > > > coming, including one for Depenabot bot (I don't think we need
> > > > > renovatebot here, dependabot does the job).
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > JB
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:27 AM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello JB,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for bring this up on and leading this effort. I have
> > following
> > > > concerns:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On-going issues:
> > > > > > 1. There is one converter which has one issue with recent change
> > (fix
> > > > purposed in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/263)
> > > > > > 2. We are using EOL Java for Polaris converter (fix purposed in
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/278...I will start a diff email
> > > > thread to bump java to 21 instead as java 17 will be EOL soon as
> well)
> > > > > > 3. The existed validation script lacks testing and have one bug
> > (fix
> > > > in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/271)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > General:
> > > > > > 1. We are still using OSI as oppose to Ossie all over the place,
> > > > should this be fix before first release?
> > > > > > 2. We are lacking of renovate bot to keep things up to date. If
> we
> > > > would be make this our first release, when will the next release be?
> > Will
> > > > there be a chance which we would have releases that is full of CVEs
> > due to
> > > > lack of renovate bot to keep things up to date?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Yong Zheng
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2026/07/26 05:13:18 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to propose that we begin preparing for our initial
> > > > > > > releases, aiming for late August or early September.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Specifically, I propose the following:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)
> > > > > > > This is our most important and strictly required release.
> As
> > per
> > > > > > > ASF guidelines, every release must contain one or more source
> > > > packages
> > > > > > > sufficient for users to build and test the project, and should
> > not
> > > > > > > contain compiled code. The Ossie source distribution will
> > include the
> > > > > > > entire repository (converters, ontology, examples, ...).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Binary Distributions for Converters
> > > > > > > For user convenience, I propose releasing a binary
> > distribution
> > > > > > > for each converter (e.g., .whl, .jar, or .tar.gz, depending on
> > the
> > > > > > > converter). These distributions will include the necessary
> > > > DISCLAIMER,
> > > > > > > LICENSE, and NOTICE files documenting the bundled content.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am currently working on the required legal improvements and
> > fixes,
> > > > > > > particularly for the converters, and I volunteer to drive these
> > > > > > > releases.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > JB
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] First Apache Ossie (incubating) releases
Posted by Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for bringing this up, JB!
Only the source distribution makes sense to me, given that we haven't
figured out the approach for releasing different converters. The source
distribution will suffice for the spec. We can figure out the converter
release in next release, either consolidate them or move them out to
separated repo, in which case, the release in the main repo will only have
the spec.
Regarding the current version, which version are you referring to? 0.2.0.dev0
or 0.3.0?
Yufei
On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 11:06 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to revive this thread as we need to move forward with our
> first release. Getting a release out (at least the source
> distribution) is a crucial milestone in our incubation process.
>
> I propose we start with an initial release (potentially keeping the
> current version for now) consisting solely of the source distribution.
> This will allow us to verify the build process and the source
> distribution artifacts.
>
> Regarding the converters, I do not expect a high volume of them
> initially, so we can manage independent releases for now. This
> approach provides greater flexibility, avoiding the need for a full
> project release when only a single converter requires a fix.
> Additionally, even within a single release, we would still need
> distinct release artifacts (like separate .whl files), so it is
> important to separate the release process from the artifacts
> themselves.
>
> I will proceed with the release preparation prerequisites and keep
> everyone updated.
>
> Regards,
> JB
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 3:25 PM Will Pugh <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)" does this include the
> > reference implementation? We currently don't have anything in the
> actually
> > evaluates the Ossie spec. What about the compliance suite?
> >
> > I feel like those are important parts of a V1, and we should prioritize
> > getting something in that people can use soon.
> >
> > Also, do we think an approach where there is a distribution per converter
> > is scalable? In the case that we have 100 converters, we really want to
> > create 100 different whls?
> >
> > --Will
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:10 PM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds good. Thanks so much JB.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yong
> > >
> > > On 2026/07/29 05:30:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > > > Hi Yong,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your feedback. We actually discussed the release
> versioning
> > > > during the first Ossie Community Meeting, and we are proposing to
> > > > start with version 0.3.0 instead of 1.0.0.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the ongoing issues you mentioned, we still have time to fix
> > > > and improve those before the release. I have already done a large
> pass
> > > > to rename "OSI" to "Ossie," and I have a couple of follow-up PRs
> > > > coming, including one for Depenabot bot (I don't think we need
> > > > renovatebot here, dependabot does the job).
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:27 AM Yong Zheng <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello JB,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for bring this up on and leading this effort. I have
> following
> > > concerns:
> > > > >
> > > > > On-going issues:
> > > > > 1. There is one converter which has one issue with recent change
> (fix
> > > purposed in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/263)
> > > > > 2. We are using EOL Java for Polaris converter (fix purposed in
> > > https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/278...I will start a diff email
> > > thread to bump java to 21 instead as java 17 will be EOL soon as well)
> > > > > 3. The existed validation script lacks testing and have one bug
> (fix
> > > in https://github.com/apache/ossie/pull/271)
> > > > >
> > > > > General:
> > > > > 1. We are still using OSI as oppose to Ossie all over the place,
> > > should this be fix before first release?
> > > > > 2. We are lacking of renovate bot to keep things up to date. If we
> > > would be make this our first release, when will the next release be?
> Will
> > > there be a chance which we would have releases that is full of CVEs
> due to
> > > lack of renovate bot to keep things up to date?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Yong Zheng
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2026/07/26 05:13:18 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to propose that we begin preparing for our initial
> > > > > > releases, aiming for late August or early September.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Specifically, I propose the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Spec 1.0.0-incubating (Source Distribution)
> > > > > > This is our most important and strictly required release. As
> per
> > > > > > ASF guidelines, every release must contain one or more source
> > > packages
> > > > > > sufficient for users to build and test the project, and should
> not
> > > > > > contain compiled code. The Ossie source distribution will
> include the
> > > > > > entire repository (converters, ontology, examples, ...).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Binary Distributions for Converters
> > > > > > For user convenience, I propose releasing a binary
> distribution
> > > > > > for each converter (e.g., .whl, .jar, or .tar.gz, depending on
> the
> > > > > > converter). These distributions will include the necessary
> > > DISCLAIMER,
> > > > > > LICENSE, and NOTICE files documenting the bundled content.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am currently working on the required legal improvements and
> fixes,
> > > > > > particularly for the converters, and I volunteer to drive these
> > > > > > releases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > JB
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>