You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tiles.apache.org by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> on 2007/04/05 15:21:28 UTC
[VOTE] 2.0.3 Release Quality
The Tiles 2.0.3 test build has been available since April 3, 2007.
Release notes:
2.0.2
*
https://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=21798&styleName=Html&projectId=10160&Create=Create
2.0.3
*
https://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=21810&styleName=Html&projectId=10160&Create=Create
Distribution:
* http://people.apache.org/builds/tiles/2.0.3/
Maven 2 staging repository:
* http://people.apache.org/builds/tiles/2.0.3/m2-staging-repository/
If you have had a chance to review the test build, please respond with
a vote on its quality:
[ ] Leave at test build
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[ ] General Availability (GA)
Everyone who has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC
members are considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least
three binding +1s and more +1s than -1s.
Re: [VOTE] 2.0.3 Release Quality
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
2007/4/11, David H. DeWolf <dd...@apache.org>:
> >
> > [ ] Leave at test build
> > [x] Alpha
> > [ ] Beta
> > [ ] General Availability (GA)
>
> The one thing I would like to see done before a beta release (where I
> think our users will start to expect the api to stabalize), is the
> reorganization of some of the classes/packages. Specifically, there
> have a few discussions on list regarding which module the filters,
> listeners, and other entry points should live in and I would like them
> to be consistent if nothing else.
Uh, yeah, I forgot about it.
At this point I think that I should change my vote to +1 to alpha.
Antonio
[RESULTS] [VOTE] 2.0.3 Release Quality
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
Finally Tiles 2.0.3 is an official release. It has been declared of
alpha quality by all three votes.
+1 - David, Antonio, Greg
0 - n/a
-1 - n/a
I will work on getting the website updated and the release published.
I'll take things in this order over the next few days.
1) Move maven artifacts
2) Move binaries
3) Update website
4) Send announcement
Thank you, team!
P.S. David, sorry if I borrowed your previous results email :-)
Re: [VOTE] 2.0.3 Release Quality
Posted by "David H. DeWolf" <dd...@apache.org>.
Greg Reddin wrote:
> On 4/11/07, David H. DeWolf <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> The one thing I would like to see done before a beta release (where I
>> think our users will start to expect the api to stabalize), is the
>> reorganization of some of the classes/packages. Specifically, there
>> have a few discussions on list regarding which module the filters,
>> listeners, and other entry points should live in and I would like them
>> to be consistent if nothing else.
>
>
> It does seem that TilesDecorationFilter and TilesDispatchServlet are
> misplaced. Personally I think all these things should be in tiles-core
> instead of tiles-api. Personally, also, I like the organization of
> tiles-api and would propose we just move those classes there.
I was thinking the opposite. . .that we should move all of the other
entry points into the API. If we have an api with no entry points, why
do we have an API? It's essentially useless.
>
> Sorry if I seem argumenattive, but how many of these "one more thing"
> changes are we going to do? It's been about 2 years since I first got
> involved in the Standalone Tiles effort that was already ongoing and we
> still don't have a release people can feel comfortable using.
On the contrary, I'm comfortable using it - in fact, have it in
production. I'm just not comfortable locking in to an API yet. I'm ok
with a beta (maybe even ga) for 2.0.3 if everyone else would be ok with
binary incompatibilities (class renames) for 2.1.x
We've pulled
> the rug out from under our users multiple times and it seems people are
> starting to choose other technologies because Tiles is viewed as
> "unstable". It may very well be that the tide will turn the other way when
> we do finally reach stability, but I fear our window of opportunity is
> closing or has already.
Point well taken.
>
> So, I'm not against the changes we're talking about. I think they are
> good,
> but add Antonio's compatibility layer and we could be looking at more
> months
> of alpha before things start to stabilize.
I'm not sure anyone proposed that the compatibility layer is required
for a beta or ga release.
If we're going to do this let's
> identify a concise set of changes that are needed and commit to them so we
> can give the users something to work with.
Sounds good to me. This is the last thing on my list. . .are there other
lists out there?
>
> What say ye?
> Greg
>
Re: [VOTE] 2.0.3 Release Quality
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
On 4/11/07, David H. DeWolf <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> The one thing I would like to see done before a beta release (where I
> think our users will start to expect the api to stabalize), is the
> reorganization of some of the classes/packages. Specifically, there
> have a few discussions on list regarding which module the filters,
> listeners, and other entry points should live in and I would like them
> to be consistent if nothing else.
It does seem that TilesDecorationFilter and TilesDispatchServlet are
misplaced. Personally I think all these things should be in tiles-core
instead of tiles-api. Personally, also, I like the organization of
tiles-api and would propose we just move those classes there.
Sorry if I seem argumenattive, but how many of these "one more thing"
changes are we going to do? It's been about 2 years since I first got
involved in the Standalone Tiles effort that was already ongoing and we
still don't have a release people can feel comfortable using. We've pulled
the rug out from under our users multiple times and it seems people are
starting to choose other technologies because Tiles is viewed as
"unstable". It may very well be that the tide will turn the other way when
we do finally reach stability, but I fear our window of opportunity is
closing or has already.
So, I'm not against the changes we're talking about. I think they are good,
but add Antonio's compatibility layer and we could be looking at more months
of alpha before things start to stabilize. If we're going to do this let's
identify a concise set of changes that are needed and commit to them so we
can give the users something to work with.
What say ye?
Greg
Re: [VOTE] 2.0.3 Release Quality
Posted by "David H. DeWolf" <dd...@apache.org>.
>
> [ ] Leave at test build
> [x] Alpha
> [ ] Beta
> [ ] General Availability (GA)
The one thing I would like to see done before a beta release (where I
think our users will start to expect the api to stabalize), is the
reorganization of some of the classes/packages. Specifically, there
have a few discussions on list regarding which module the filters,
listeners, and other entry points should live in and I would like them
to be consistent if nothing else.
Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> The Tiles 2.0.3 test build has been available since April 3, 2007.
>
> Release notes:
>
>
> 2.0.2
> *
> https://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=21798&styleName=Html&projectId=10160&Create=Create
>
>
> 2.0.3
> *
> https://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=21810&styleName=Html&projectId=10160&Create=Create
>
>
> Distribution:
>
> * http://people.apache.org/builds/tiles/2.0.3/
>
> Maven 2 staging repository:
>
> * http://people.apache.org/builds/tiles/2.0.3/m2-staging-repository/
>
> If you have had a chance to review the test build, please respond with
> a vote on its quality:
>
> [ ] Leave at test build
> [ ] Alpha
> [ ] Beta
> [ ] General Availability (GA)
>
>
> Everyone who has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC
> members are considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least
> three binding +1s and more +1s than -1s.
>
Re: [VOTE] 2.0.3 Release Quality
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
> [ ] Leave at test build
> [ ] Alpha
> [X] Beta
> [ ] General Availability (GA)
Antonio
Re: [VOTE] 2.0.3 Release Quality
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
On 4/9/07, David H. DeWolf <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, I plan to, but won't have a chance to comment until I do some
> testing tonight.
Cool, just wanted to make sure it didn't die without a quorum :-)
Greg
Re: [VOTE] 2.0.3 Release Quality
Posted by "David H. DeWolf" <dd...@apache.org>.
Yes, I plan to, but won't have a chance to comment until I do some
testing tonight.
David
Greg Reddin wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [ ] Leave at test build
>> [ ] Alpha
>> [X] Beta
>> [ ] General Availability (GA)
>
>
> I'm very happy with the direction we're headed with this release. I think
> if we add some doc and get it in the wild for a while we may be approaching
> GA-quality (fingers crossed).
>
> Sorry it took so long to respond. Anyone else wish to comment?
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
Re: [VOTE] 2.0.3 Release Quality
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
On 4/5/07, Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ ] Leave at test build
> [ ] Alpha
> [X] Beta
> [ ] General Availability (GA)
I'm very happy with the direction we're headed with this release. I think
if we add some doc and get it in the wild for a while we may be approaching
GA-quality (fingers crossed).
Sorry it took so long to respond. Anyone else wish to comment?
Thanks,
Greg