a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>]

  Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
super-active recently.

  There are several tasks that need to happen for release:

- branching
- remove incomplete data grid features in branch
- update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
- create / sign release package
- vote on release package
- publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation

  I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)

  One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:

  http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html

indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
this work.

Eddie

On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Eddie,
>
> I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> if that would help.
>
> Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> the dev community should/could be doing?
>
> Kind regards,
> Carlin
>
> On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > to volunteer.  :)
> >
> >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> >
> >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> >
> >   My $0.02.
> >
> > Eddie
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > either option would work.
> > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > time rather than rushing.
> > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > the rest of the community?
> > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > >
> > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > >
> > > > Carlin
> > > >
> > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > >
> > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > >
> > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > >
> > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eddie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > I
> > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > a few
> > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > on
> > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > well.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>]

  Comments below; we should also add the LICENSE and NOTICE files to
each of the JARs since this has become best practice for Apache
projects.

Eddie


On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just

[eko] Once the release is done, we'll need to add a new <version>
block to the <release> section to the doap file in trunk/.  You can
ignore the one that was branched because the one in trunk/ is used to
generate http://projects.apache.org.

> - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?

[eko] It's just a readme -- no need to update it.

>
> - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
>

[eko] Correct -- the @beehive.version@ string is substituted when the
build runs and is just changed in trunk/beehive-imports.xml

> I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> until the release to update these.

[eko] Right -- once we've voted on a release, the site changes to add
links to the new 1.0.2 documentation bundle and to add a link to the
download page.

>
> I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
>
> Thanks for your help.
> Carlin
>
> On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> >
> > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Carlin
> >
> > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > > super-active recently.
> > >
> > >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> > >
> > > - branching
> > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > > - create / sign release package
> > > - vote on release package
> > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> > >
> > >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> > >
> > >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> > >
> > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> > >
> > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > > this work.
> > >
> > > Eddie
> > >
> > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > >
> > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > > if that would help.
> > > >
> > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Carlin
> > > >
> > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > > >
> > > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > > >
> > > > >   My $0.02.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eddie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com>]

Hey Eddie,

No. Sorry, I don't have a signed key. If you could create / sign the
release package that would be great. Thanks!

Carlin

On 11/5/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carlin--
>
>   Great -- thanks.  Nice work on the release so far.  I've twiddled
> the appropriate stuff in JIRA to create a 1.0.2 release.
>
>   The rest of the release generally goes in this order:
>
> - create the release notes for the 1.0.2 release.  JIRA will help with
> this; browse BEEHIVE in JIRA, click "Road Map", select "Release
> Notes", and copy / paste the HTML output at the bottom of the page
> into a releaseNotes.xml page in the release docuumentation
> - create and sign the release package
> - test the release package
> - post the release package somewhere accessible to everyone for review
> - VOTE :) for at least 3 days; repeat as necessary.
>
> Once the vote has passed, there are a few things left:
> - update the website with a new download page
> - update the website with a release announcement
> - copy the release documentation to http://beehive.apache.org/docs/1.0.2
> - add the JARs to the Maven repository
> - copy the release JARs to http://dist.apache.org so that they're
> copied to the ASF mirrors
> - mark the release as shipped in JIRA
>
>   Do you have a signed key?  If not, I can create / sign the release package.
>
> Eddie
>
>
>
>
> On 11/5/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Eddie,
> >
> > I've made the changes to add the license and notice files to the
> > beehive jars. Looked like both Struts and Ant placed these files in
> > META-INF of their jars so I did the same.
> >
> > Anything else I can do before we create / sign a release package?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Carlin
> >
> > On 11/3/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Eddie,
> > >
> > > Yes, that helps. Thanks for the reply as well as the feedback on my
> > > earlier questions about the docs.
> > >
> > > Carlin
> > >
> > > On 11/3/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Carlin--
> > > >
> > > >    Seems like that change should be removed as well because it was a
> > > > step along the way to the partial data set support in trunk.  The
> > > > PagedDataSet class changed more from that SVN version.
> > > >
> > > >   Probably best to go back to before that work started.
> > > >
> > > > HTH.
> > > > Eddie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Eddie,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid
> > > > > features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you
> > > > > did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150,
> > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/%3c20060618155232.DB13A1A983A@eris.apache.org%3e
> > > > > as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to
> > > > > leave that in?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Carlin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
> > > > > > release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
> > > > > > about some other files...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
> > > > > > modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll
> > > > > > out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
> > > > > > some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
> > > > > > subproject?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> > > > > > should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> > > > > > until the release to update these.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your help.
> > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > > > > > > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > > > > > > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > > > > > > > super-active recently.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - branching
> > > > > > > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > > > > > > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > > > > > > > - create / sign release package
> > > > > > > > - vote on release package
> > > > > > > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > > > > > > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > > > > > > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > > > > > > > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > > > > > > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > > > > > > > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > > > > > > > this work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > > > > > > > if that would help.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > > > > > > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > > > > > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > > > > > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > > > > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > > > > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > > > > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > > > > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   My $0.02.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > > > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > > > > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > > > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > > > > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > > > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > > > > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > > > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > > > > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > > > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com>]

Eddie,

I can start in on fixing some of the license header issues. I'm not
very familiar with this new tool. Did you just do an svn checkout of
the arat source, built the tool, then run it against a distribution?

Thanks,
Carlin

On 11/19/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carlin--
>
>   I've created the release, though there is still some work left to do
> in getting it finalized.  There's a new tool used to check the
> ASF-ness of a release in terms of license headers / copyright notice
> called RAT that's available here:
>
>   http://code.google.com/p/arat/
>
> and it shows a bunch of files in the various distributions
> (binary|lib|src) that need to have license headers applied.  I'm not
> able to fix these today in addition to shipping the release -- will
> get to it later this week.  Feel free to jumping in with RAT -- it's
> mostly just adding headers to a bunch of files.
>
> Eddie
>
>
> On 11/10/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Carlin--
> >
> >   I'll take a pass through the release notes and prune items that are
> > noise for users (test infrastructure, etc).  I won't get to finalizing
> > a release this weekend but should be able to wrap it up the weekend of
> > the 18th.  Apologies for the delay...
> >
> > Eddie
> >
> >
> > On 11/8/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks for the fix to the release notes Eddie. Did anyone else have
> > > anything to add or change in the release notes? Other thoughts?
> > >
> > > Eddie, if there are no other changes to role into release notes, when
> > > would you plan to "create and sign the release package"? Just curious.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Carlin
> > >
> > > On 11/5/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Eddie, All,
> > > >
> > > > SVN revision 471547 contains a first pass at the release notes for
> > > > 1.0.2. Please take a moment to review and edit as needed. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Carlin
> > > >
> > > > On 11/5/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Carlin--
> > > > >
> > > > >   Great -- thanks.  Nice work on the release so far.  I've twiddled
> > > > > the appropriate stuff in JIRA to create a 1.0.2 release.
> > > > >
> > > > >   The rest of the release generally goes in this order:
> > > > >
> > > > > - create the release notes for the 1.0.2 release.  JIRA will help with
> > > > > this; browse BEEHIVE in JIRA, click "Road Map", select "Release
> > > > > Notes", and copy / paste the HTML output at the bottom of the page
> > > > > into a releaseNotes.xml page in the release docuumentation
> > > > > - create and sign the release package
> > > > > - test the release package
> > > > > - post the release package somewhere accessible to everyone for review
> > > > > - VOTE :) for at least 3 days; repeat as necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once the vote has passed, there are a few things left:
> > > > > - update the website with a new download page
> > > > > - update the website with a release announcement
> > > > > - copy the release documentation to http://beehive.apache.org/docs/1.0.2
> > > > > - add the JARs to the Maven repository
> > > > > - copy the release JARs to http://dist.apache.org so that they're
> > > > > copied to the ASF mirrors
> > > > > - mark the release as shipped in JIRA
> > > > >
> > > > >   Do you have a signed key?  If not, I can create / sign the release package.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eddie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/5/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Eddie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've made the changes to add the license and notice files to the
> > > > > > beehive jars. Looked like both Struts and Ant placed these files in
> > > > > > META-INF of their jars so I did the same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anything else I can do before we create / sign a release package?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11/3/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Eddie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, that helps. Thanks for the reply as well as the feedback on my
> > > > > > > earlier questions about the docs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 11/3/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Carlin--
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >    Seems like that change should be removed as well because it was a
> > > > > > > > step along the way to the partial data set support in trunk.  The
> > > > > > > > PagedDataSet class changed more from that SVN version.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   Probably best to go back to before that work started.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > HTH.
> > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Eddie,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid
> > > > > > > > > features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you
> > > > > > > > > did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150,
> > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/%3c20060618155232.DB13A1A983A@eris.apache.org%3e
> > > > > > > > > as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to
> > > > > > > > > leave that in?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
> > > > > > > > > > release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
> > > > > > > > > > about some other files...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
> > > > > > > > > > modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll
> > > > > > > > > > out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
> > > > > > > > > > some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
> > > > > > > > > > subproject?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> > > > > > > > > > should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> > > > > > > > > > until the release to update these.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your help.
> > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > > > > > > > > > > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > > > > > > > > > > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > > > > > > > > > > > super-active recently.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - branching
> > > > > > > > > > > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > > > > > > > > > > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > > > > > > > > > > > - create / sign release package
> > > > > > > > > > > > - vote on release package
> > > > > > > > > > > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > > > > > > > > > > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > > > > > > > > > > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > > > > > > > > > > > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > > > > > > > > > > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > > > > > > > > > > > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > this work.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if that would help.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   My $0.02.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>]

Carlin--

  I've created the release, though there is still some work left to do
in getting it finalized.  There's a new tool used to check the
ASF-ness of a release in terms of license headers / copyright notice
called RAT that's available here:

  http://code.google.com/p/arat/

and it shows a bunch of files in the various distributions
(binary|lib|src) that need to have license headers applied.  I'm not
able to fix these today in addition to shipping the release -- will
get to it later this week.  Feel free to jumping in with RAT -- it's
mostly just adding headers to a bunch of files.

Eddie


On 11/10/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carlin--
>
>   I'll take a pass through the release notes and prune items that are
> noise for users (test infrastructure, etc).  I won't get to finalizing
> a release this weekend but should be able to wrap it up the weekend of
> the 18th.  Apologies for the delay...
>
> Eddie
>
>
> On 11/8/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the fix to the release notes Eddie. Did anyone else have
> > anything to add or change in the release notes? Other thoughts?
> >
> > Eddie, if there are no other changes to role into release notes, when
> > would you plan to "create and sign the release package"? Just curious.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Carlin
> >
> > On 11/5/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Eddie, All,
> > >
> > > SVN revision 471547 contains a first pass at the release notes for
> > > 1.0.2. Please take a moment to review and edit as needed. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Carlin
> > >
> > > On 11/5/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Carlin--
> > > >
> > > >   Great -- thanks.  Nice work on the release so far.  I've twiddled
> > > > the appropriate stuff in JIRA to create a 1.0.2 release.
> > > >
> > > >   The rest of the release generally goes in this order:
> > > >
> > > > - create the release notes for the 1.0.2 release.  JIRA will help with
> > > > this; browse BEEHIVE in JIRA, click "Road Map", select "Release
> > > > Notes", and copy / paste the HTML output at the bottom of the page
> > > > into a releaseNotes.xml page in the release docuumentation
> > > > - create and sign the release package
> > > > - test the release package
> > > > - post the release package somewhere accessible to everyone for review
> > > > - VOTE :) for at least 3 days; repeat as necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Once the vote has passed, there are a few things left:
> > > > - update the website with a new download page
> > > > - update the website with a release announcement
> > > > - copy the release documentation to http://beehive.apache.org/docs/1.0.2
> > > > - add the JARs to the Maven repository
> > > > - copy the release JARs to http://dist.apache.org so that they're
> > > > copied to the ASF mirrors
> > > > - mark the release as shipped in JIRA
> > > >
> > > >   Do you have a signed key?  If not, I can create / sign the release package.
> > > >
> > > > Eddie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11/5/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Eddie,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've made the changes to add the license and notice files to the
> > > > > beehive jars. Looked like both Struts and Ant placed these files in
> > > > > META-INF of their jars so I did the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anything else I can do before we create / sign a release package?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Carlin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/3/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Eddie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that helps. Thanks for the reply as well as the feedback on my
> > > > > > earlier questions about the docs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11/3/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Carlin--
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    Seems like that change should be removed as well because it was a
> > > > > > > step along the way to the partial data set support in trunk.  The
> > > > > > > PagedDataSet class changed more from that SVN version.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Probably best to go back to before that work started.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > HTH.
> > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Eddie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid
> > > > > > > > features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you
> > > > > > > > did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150,
> > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/%3c20060618155232.DB13A1A983A@eris.apache.org%3e
> > > > > > > > as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to
> > > > > > > > leave that in?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
> > > > > > > > > release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
> > > > > > > > > about some other files...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
> > > > > > > > > modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll
> > > > > > > > > out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
> > > > > > > > > some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
> > > > > > > > > subproject?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> > > > > > > > > should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> > > > > > > > > until the release to update these.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for your help.
> > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > > > > > > > > > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > > > > > > > > > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > > > > > > > > > > super-active recently.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > - branching
> > > > > > > > > > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > > > > > > > > > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > > > > > > > > > > - create / sign release package
> > > > > > > > > > > - vote on release package
> > > > > > > > > > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > > > > > > > > > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > > > > > > > > > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > > > > > > > > > > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > > > > > > > > > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > > > > > > > > > > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > > > > > > > > > > this work.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > if that would help.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > > > > > > > > > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   My $0.02.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>]

Carlin--

  I'll take a pass through the release notes and prune items that are
noise for users (test infrastructure, etc).  I won't get to finalizing
a release this weekend but should be able to wrap it up the weekend of
the 18th.  Apologies for the delay...

Eddie


On 11/8/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the fix to the release notes Eddie. Did anyone else have
> anything to add or change in the release notes? Other thoughts?
>
> Eddie, if there are no other changes to role into release notes, when
> would you plan to "create and sign the release package"? Just curious.
>
> Thanks,
> Carlin
>
> On 11/5/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Eddie, All,
> >
> > SVN revision 471547 contains a first pass at the release notes for
> > 1.0.2. Please take a moment to review and edit as needed. Thanks!
> >
> > Carlin
> >
> > On 11/5/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Carlin--
> > >
> > >   Great -- thanks.  Nice work on the release so far.  I've twiddled
> > > the appropriate stuff in JIRA to create a 1.0.2 release.
> > >
> > >   The rest of the release generally goes in this order:
> > >
> > > - create the release notes for the 1.0.2 release.  JIRA will help with
> > > this; browse BEEHIVE in JIRA, click "Road Map", select "Release
> > > Notes", and copy / paste the HTML output at the bottom of the page
> > > into a releaseNotes.xml page in the release docuumentation
> > > - create and sign the release package
> > > - test the release package
> > > - post the release package somewhere accessible to everyone for review
> > > - VOTE :) for at least 3 days; repeat as necessary.
> > >
> > > Once the vote has passed, there are a few things left:
> > > - update the website with a new download page
> > > - update the website with a release announcement
> > > - copy the release documentation to http://beehive.apache.org/docs/1.0.2
> > > - add the JARs to the Maven repository
> > > - copy the release JARs to http://dist.apache.org so that they're
> > > copied to the ASF mirrors
> > > - mark the release as shipped in JIRA
> > >
> > >   Do you have a signed key?  If not, I can create / sign the release package.
> > >
> > > Eddie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/5/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Eddie,
> > > >
> > > > I've made the changes to add the license and notice files to the
> > > > beehive jars. Looked like both Struts and Ant placed these files in
> > > > META-INF of their jars so I did the same.
> > > >
> > > > Anything else I can do before we create / sign a release package?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Carlin
> > > >
> > > > On 11/3/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Eddie,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that helps. Thanks for the reply as well as the feedback on my
> > > > > earlier questions about the docs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carlin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/3/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Carlin--
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    Seems like that change should be removed as well because it was a
> > > > > > step along the way to the partial data set support in trunk.  The
> > > > > > PagedDataSet class changed more from that SVN version.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Probably best to go back to before that work started.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HTH.
> > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Eddie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid
> > > > > > > features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you
> > > > > > > did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150,
> > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/%3c20060618155232.DB13A1A983A@eris.apache.org%3e
> > > > > > > as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to
> > > > > > > leave that in?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
> > > > > > > > release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
> > > > > > > > about some other files...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
> > > > > > > > modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll
> > > > > > > > out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
> > > > > > > > some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
> > > > > > > > subproject?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> > > > > > > > should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> > > > > > > > until the release to update these.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for your help.
> > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > > > > > > > > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > > > > > > > > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > > > > > > > > > super-active recently.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - branching
> > > > > > > > > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > > > > > > > > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > > > > > > > > > - create / sign release package
> > > > > > > > > > - vote on release package
> > > > > > > > > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > > > > > > > > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > > > > > > > > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > > > > > > > > > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > > > > > > > > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > > > > > > > > > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > > > > > > > > > this work.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > > > > > > > > > if that would help.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > > > > > > > > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > > > > > > > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > > > > > > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > > > > > > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >   My $0.02.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the fix to the release notes Eddie. Did anyone else have
anything to add or change in the release notes? Other thoughts?

Eddie, if there are no other changes to role into release notes, when
would you plan to "create and sign the release package"? Just curious.

Thanks,
Carlin

On 11/5/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eddie, All,
>
> SVN revision 471547 contains a first pass at the release notes for
> 1.0.2. Please take a moment to review and edit as needed. Thanks!
>
> Carlin
>
> On 11/5/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Carlin--
> >
> >   Great -- thanks.  Nice work on the release so far.  I've twiddled
> > the appropriate stuff in JIRA to create a 1.0.2 release.
> >
> >   The rest of the release generally goes in this order:
> >
> > - create the release notes for the 1.0.2 release.  JIRA will help with
> > this; browse BEEHIVE in JIRA, click "Road Map", select "Release
> > Notes", and copy / paste the HTML output at the bottom of the page
> > into a releaseNotes.xml page in the release docuumentation
> > - create and sign the release package
> > - test the release package
> > - post the release package somewhere accessible to everyone for review
> > - VOTE :) for at least 3 days; repeat as necessary.
> >
> > Once the vote has passed, there are a few things left:
> > - update the website with a new download page
> > - update the website with a release announcement
> > - copy the release documentation to http://beehive.apache.org/docs/1.0.2
> > - add the JARs to the Maven repository
> > - copy the release JARs to http://dist.apache.org so that they're
> > copied to the ASF mirrors
> > - mark the release as shipped in JIRA
> >
> >   Do you have a signed key?  If not, I can create / sign the release package.
> >
> > Eddie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/5/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Eddie,
> > >
> > > I've made the changes to add the license and notice files to the
> > > beehive jars. Looked like both Struts and Ant placed these files in
> > > META-INF of their jars so I did the same.
> > >
> > > Anything else I can do before we create / sign a release package?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Carlin
> > >
> > > On 11/3/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Eddie,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that helps. Thanks for the reply as well as the feedback on my
> > > > earlier questions about the docs.
> > > >
> > > > Carlin
> > > >
> > > > On 11/3/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Carlin--
> > > > >
> > > > >    Seems like that change should be removed as well because it was a
> > > > > step along the way to the partial data set support in trunk.  The
> > > > > PagedDataSet class changed more from that SVN version.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Probably best to go back to before that work started.
> > > > >
> > > > > HTH.
> > > > > Eddie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Eddie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid
> > > > > > features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you
> > > > > > did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150,
> > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/%3c20060618155232.DB13A1A983A@eris.apache.org%3e
> > > > > > as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to
> > > > > > leave that in?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
> > > > > > > release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
> > > > > > > about some other files...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
> > > > > > > modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll
> > > > > > > out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
> > > > > > > some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
> > > > > > > subproject?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> > > > > > > should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> > > > > > > until the release to update these.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your help.
> > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > > > > > > > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > > > > > > > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > > > > > > > > super-active recently.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - branching
> > > > > > > > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > > > > > > > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > > > > > > > > - create / sign release package
> > > > > > > > > - vote on release package
> > > > > > > > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > > > > > > > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > > > > > > > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > > > > > > > > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > > > > > > > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > > > > > > > > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > > > > > > > > this work.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > > > > > > > > if that would help.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > > > > > > > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > > > > > > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > > > > > > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > > > > > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > > > > > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > > > > > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > > > > > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >   My $0.02.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > > > > > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > > > > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > > > > > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com>]

Eddie, All,

SVN revision 471547 contains a first pass at the release notes for
1.0.2. Please take a moment to review and edit as needed. Thanks!

Carlin

On 11/5/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carlin--
>
>   Great -- thanks.  Nice work on the release so far.  I've twiddled
> the appropriate stuff in JIRA to create a 1.0.2 release.
>
>   The rest of the release generally goes in this order:
>
> - create the release notes for the 1.0.2 release.  JIRA will help with
> this; browse BEEHIVE in JIRA, click "Road Map", select "Release
> Notes", and copy / paste the HTML output at the bottom of the page
> into a releaseNotes.xml page in the release docuumentation
> - create and sign the release package
> - test the release package
> - post the release package somewhere accessible to everyone for review
> - VOTE :) for at least 3 days; repeat as necessary.
>
> Once the vote has passed, there are a few things left:
> - update the website with a new download page
> - update the website with a release announcement
> - copy the release documentation to http://beehive.apache.org/docs/1.0.2
> - add the JARs to the Maven repository
> - copy the release JARs to http://dist.apache.org so that they're
> copied to the ASF mirrors
> - mark the release as shipped in JIRA
>
>   Do you have a signed key?  If not, I can create / sign the release package.
>
> Eddie
>
>
>
>
> On 11/5/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Eddie,
> >
> > I've made the changes to add the license and notice files to the
> > beehive jars. Looked like both Struts and Ant placed these files in
> > META-INF of their jars so I did the same.
> >
> > Anything else I can do before we create / sign a release package?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Carlin
> >
> > On 11/3/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Eddie,
> > >
> > > Yes, that helps. Thanks for the reply as well as the feedback on my
> > > earlier questions about the docs.
> > >
> > > Carlin
> > >
> > > On 11/3/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Carlin--
> > > >
> > > >    Seems like that change should be removed as well because it was a
> > > > step along the way to the partial data set support in trunk.  The
> > > > PagedDataSet class changed more from that SVN version.
> > > >
> > > >   Probably best to go back to before that work started.
> > > >
> > > > HTH.
> > > > Eddie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Eddie,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid
> > > > > features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you
> > > > > did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150,
> > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/%3c20060618155232.DB13A1A983A@eris.apache.org%3e
> > > > > as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to
> > > > > leave that in?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Carlin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
> > > > > > release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
> > > > > > about some other files...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
> > > > > > modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll
> > > > > > out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
> > > > > > some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
> > > > > > subproject?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> > > > > > should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> > > > > > until the release to update these.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your help.
> > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > > > > > > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > > > > > > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > > > > > > > super-active recently.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - branching
> > > > > > > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > > > > > > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > > > > > > > - create / sign release package
> > > > > > > > - vote on release package
> > > > > > > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > > > > > > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > > > > > > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > > > > > > > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > > > > > > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > > > > > > > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > > > > > > > this work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > > > > > > > if that would help.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > > > > > > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > > > > > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > > > > > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > > > > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > > > > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > > > > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > > > > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   My $0.02.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > > > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > > > > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > > > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > > > > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > > > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > > > > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > > > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > > > > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > > > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>]

Carlin--

  Great -- thanks.  Nice work on the release so far.  I've twiddled
the appropriate stuff in JIRA to create a 1.0.2 release.

  The rest of the release generally goes in this order:

- create the release notes for the 1.0.2 release.  JIRA will help with
this; browse BEEHIVE in JIRA, click "Road Map", select "Release
Notes", and copy / paste the HTML output at the bottom of the page
into a releaseNotes.xml page in the release docuumentation
- create and sign the release package
- test the release package
- post the release package somewhere accessible to everyone for review
- VOTE :) for at least 3 days; repeat as necessary.

Once the vote has passed, there are a few things left:
- update the website with a new download page
- update the website with a release announcement
- copy the release documentation to http://beehive.apache.org/docs/1.0.2
- add the JARs to the Maven repository
- copy the release JARs to http://dist.apache.org so that they're
copied to the ASF mirrors
- mark the release as shipped in JIRA

  Do you have a signed key?  If not, I can create / sign the release package.

Eddie




On 11/5/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eddie,
>
> I've made the changes to add the license and notice files to the
> beehive jars. Looked like both Struts and Ant placed these files in
> META-INF of their jars so I did the same.
>
> Anything else I can do before we create / sign a release package?
>
> Thanks,
> Carlin
>
> On 11/3/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Eddie,
> >
> > Yes, that helps. Thanks for the reply as well as the feedback on my
> > earlier questions about the docs.
> >
> > Carlin
> >
> > On 11/3/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Carlin--
> > >
> > >    Seems like that change should be removed as well because it was a
> > > step along the way to the partial data set support in trunk.  The
> > > PagedDataSet class changed more from that SVN version.
> > >
> > >   Probably best to go back to before that work started.
> > >
> > > HTH.
> > > Eddie
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Eddie,
> > > >
> > > > I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid
> > > > features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you
> > > > did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150,
> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/%3c20060618155232.DB13A1A983A@eris.apache.org%3e
> > > > as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to
> > > > leave that in?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Carlin
> > > >
> > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
> > > > > release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
> > > > > about some other files...
> > > > >
> > > > > - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
> > > > > modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll
> > > > > out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
> > > > > some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
> > > > > subproject?
> > > > >
> > > > > - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> > > > > should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?
> > > > >
> > > > > - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> > > > > until the release to update these.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your help.
> > > > > Carlin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > > > > > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > > > > > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > > > > > > super-active recently.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - branching
> > > > > > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > > > > > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > > > > > > - create / sign release package
> > > > > > > - vote on release package
> > > > > > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > > > > > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > > > > > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > > > > > > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > > > > > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > > > > > > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > > > > > > this work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > > > > > > if that would help.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > > > > > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > > > > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > > > > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > > > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > > > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > > > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > > > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   My $0.02.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > > > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > > > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > > > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > > > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com>]

Eddie,

I've made the changes to add the license and notice files to the
beehive jars. Looked like both Struts and Ant placed these files in
META-INF of their jars so I did the same.

Anything else I can do before we create / sign a release package?

Thanks,
Carlin

On 11/3/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eddie,
>
> Yes, that helps. Thanks for the reply as well as the feedback on my
> earlier questions about the docs.
>
> Carlin
>
> On 11/3/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Carlin--
> >
> >    Seems like that change should be removed as well because it was a
> > step along the way to the partial data set support in trunk.  The
> > PagedDataSet class changed more from that SVN version.
> >
> >   Probably best to go back to before that work started.
> >
> > HTH.
> > Eddie
> >
> >
> > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Eddie,
> > >
> > > I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid
> > > features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you
> > > did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150,
> > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/%3c20060618155232.DB13A1A983A@eris.apache.org%3e
> > > as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to
> > > leave that in?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Carlin
> > >
> > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > >
> > > > I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
> > > > release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
> > > > about some other files...
> > > >
> > > > - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
> > > > modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll
> > > > out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
> > > > some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
> > > > subproject?
> > > >
> > > > - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> > > > should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?
> > > >
> > > > - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
> > > >
> > > > I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> > > > until the release to update these.
> > > >
> > > > I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your help.
> > > > Carlin
> > > >
> > > > On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > > > > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > Carlin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > > > > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > > > > > super-active recently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - branching
> > > > > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > > > > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > > > > > - create / sign release package
> > > > > > - vote on release package
> > > > > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > > > > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > > > > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > > > > > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > > > > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > > > > > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > > > > > this work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > > > > > if that would help.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > > > > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > > > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > > > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   My $0.02.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com>]

Eddie,

Yes, that helps. Thanks for the reply as well as the feedback on my
earlier questions about the docs.

Carlin

On 11/3/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carlin--
>
>    Seems like that change should be removed as well because it was a
> step along the way to the partial data set support in trunk.  The
> PagedDataSet class changed more from that SVN version.
>
>   Probably best to go back to before that work started.
>
> HTH.
> Eddie
>
>
> On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Eddie,
> >
> > I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid
> > features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you
> > did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150,
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/%3c20060618155232.DB13A1A983A@eris.apache.org%3e
> > as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to
> > leave that in?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Carlin
> >
> > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey Eddie,
> > >
> > > I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
> > > release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
> > > about some other files...
> > >
> > > - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
> > > modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll
> > > out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
> > > some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
> > > subproject?
> > >
> > > - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> > > should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?
> > >
> > > - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
> > >
> > > I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> > > until the release to update these.
> > >
> > > I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help.
> > > Carlin
> > >
> > > On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > > > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> > > >
> > > > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Carlin
> > > >
> > > > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > > > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > > > > super-active recently.
> > > > >
> > > > >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> > > > >
> > > > > - branching
> > > > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > > > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > > > > - create / sign release package
> > > > > - vote on release package
> > > > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> > > > >
> > > > >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > > > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > > > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> > > > >
> > > > >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > > > > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> > > > >
> > > > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> > > > >
> > > > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > > > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > > > > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > > > > this work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eddie
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > > > > if that would help.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > > > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   My $0.02.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>]

Carlin--

   Seems like that change should be removed as well because it was a
step along the way to the partial data set support in trunk.  The
PagedDataSet class changed more from that SVN version.

  Probably best to go back to before that work started.

HTH.
Eddie


On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eddie,
>
> I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid
> features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you
> did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150,
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/%3c20060618155232.DB13A1A983A@eris.apache.org%3e
> as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to
> leave that in?
>
> Thanks,
> Carlin
>
> On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey Eddie,
> >
> > I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
> > release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
> > about some other files...
> >
> > - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
> > modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll
> > out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
> > some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
> > subproject?
> >
> > - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> > should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?
> >
> > - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
> >
> > I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> > until the release to update these.
> >
> > I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> > Carlin
> >
> > On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> > >
> > > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Carlin
> > >
> > > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > > > super-active recently.
> > > >
> > > >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> > > >
> > > > - branching
> > > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > > > - create / sign release package
> > > > - vote on release package
> > > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> > > >
> > > >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> > > >
> > > >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > > > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> > > >
> > > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> > > >
> > > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > > > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > > > this work.
> > > >
> > > > Eddie
> > > >
> > > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > >
> > > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > > > if that would help.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > Carlin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   My $0.02.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com>]

Eddie,

I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid
features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you
did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150,
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/%3c20060618155232.DB13A1A983A@eris.apache.org%3e
as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to
leave that in?

Thanks,
Carlin

On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Eddie,
>
> I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
> release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
> about some other files...
>
> - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
> modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll
> out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
> some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
> subproject?
>
> - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?
>
> - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
>
> I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> until the release to update these.
>
> I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
>
> Thanks for your help.
> Carlin
>
> On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> >
> > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Carlin
> >
> > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > > super-active recently.
> > >
> > >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> > >
> > > - branching
> > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > > - create / sign release package
> > > - vote on release package
> > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> > >
> > >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> > >
> > >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> > >
> > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> > >
> > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > > this work.
> > >
> > > Eddie
> > >
> > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > >
> > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > > if that would help.
> > > >
> > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Carlin
> > > >
> > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > > >
> > > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > > >
> > > > >   My $0.02.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eddie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com>]

Hey Eddie,

I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
about some other files...

- doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll
out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
subproject?

- docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?

- POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?

I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
until the release to update these.

I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.

Thanks for your help.
Carlin

On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
>
> Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.
>
> Kind regards,
> Carlin
>
> On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> > super-active recently.
> >
> >   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
> >
> > - branching
> > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> > - create / sign release package
> > - vote on release package
> > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
> >
> >   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> > you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
> >
> >   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> > files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
> >
> >   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
> >
> > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> > the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> > this work.
> >
> > Eddie
> >
> > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey Eddie,
> > >
> > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > > if that would help.
> > >
> > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > > the dev community should/could be doing?
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Carlin
> > >
> > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > > to volunteer.  :)
> > > >
> > > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > > >
> > > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > > >
> > > >   My $0.02.
> > > >
> > > > Eddie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > > either option would work.
> > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carlin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]

[Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com>]

Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
happy to help if that makes it easier for you.

Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well.

Kind regards,
Carlin

On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
> indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
> super-active recently.
>
>   There are several tasks that need to happen for release:
>
> - branching
> - remove incomplete data grid features in branch
> - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
> - create / sign release package
> - vote on release package
> - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation
>
>   I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
> and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
> you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)
>
>   One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
> files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:
>
>   http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>
> indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
> are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
> the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
> this work.
>
> Eddie
>
> On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey Eddie,
> >
> > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> > if that would help.
> >
> > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> > the dev community should/could be doing?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Carlin
> >
> > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > > to volunteer.  :)
> > >
> > >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> > >
> > >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> > >
> > >   My $0.02.
> > >
> > > Eddie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > > either option would work.
> > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > > time rather than rushing.
> > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > > the rest of the community?
> > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > > >
> > > > > Carlin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eddie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs --
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release.
> > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with
> > > > > a few
> > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes
> > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as
> > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release (
> > > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>