New release

[Dennis Reedy <de...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

I didn’t want to add this to the thread that Patricia started, but IMO I’d like us to push for a new release ASAP. Peter’s done a ton of work, there are improvements needed to the RMI classloading approach that can help projects out there today that use OSGi, and we have to do something.

What I’d like to suggest is we create version 3.0, rename the com.sun.jini namespace to org.apache.river, and produce a new release. Lets get this done over the next quarter. I know there are alot of details with this proposal, and esoteric discussions surrounding “what are we”, but we either release or die. IMO, its that simple.

If anyone does not like whats in 3.0, they can still use 2.2.2. If bug fixes are needed for 2.2.2 we can still provide support for it. Release early, release often.

Regards

Dennis

Re: New release

[Dawid Loubser <da...@travellinck.com>]

Ah, *that's* the issue I had stuck in the back of my mind now, the
"not-building" one.
I had somebody translated that into "not running" with Java 8 also.

thanks for clarifying,
Dawid


On 30/04/2015 18:03, Greg Trasuk wrote:
> 2.2.x works fine with Java 8, it just doesn’t compile with Java 8.  I suppose if a given user’s build system uses classdep, then it would be a problem as well.  Do people often use classdep?  I never have.
>
> Having said that, there was a patch contributed to make the build system work under Java 8.  I’m planning to apply that patch soon and spin a release of 2.2.x as well.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg Trasuk
>
> On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Dawid Loubser <da...@travellinck.com> wrote:
>
>> I strongly support this! Peter's work needs to get out there and be
>> battle-proven, and anything that even inches towards River/OSGi harmony
>> needs to get out there so that people can experiment, build on top of, etc.
>> Finally - and I may be wrong about this - River 3 will be the first
>> version that plays well with Java 8? We really want to upgrade our
>> production systems to Java 8, and one of the blockers is the
>> (perceived?) notion that River 2.x does not work with Java 8.
>>
>> It's a bit off-topic, but if I'm wrong about that last part, please let
>> me know :-)
>>
>> regards,
>> Dawid Loubser
>>
>> On 30/04/2015 17:13, Dennis Reedy wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I didn’t want to add this to the thread that Patricia started, but IMO I’d like us to push for a new release ASAP. Peter’s done a ton of work, there are improvements needed to the RMI classloading approach that can help projects out there today that use OSGi, and we have to do something.
>>>
>>> What I’d like to suggest is we create version 3.0, rename the com.sun.jini namespace to org.apache.river, and produce a new release. Lets get this done over the next quarter. I know there are alot of details with this proposal, and esoteric discussions surrounding “what are we”, but we either release or die. IMO, its that simple.
>>>
>>> If anyone does not like whats in 3.0, they can still use 2.2.2. If bug fixes are needed for 2.2.2 we can still provide support for it. Release early, release often.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Dennis
>>

Re: New release

[Greg Trasuk <tr...@stratuscom.com>]

2.2.x works fine with Java 8, it just doesn’t compile with Java 8.  I suppose if a given user’s build system uses classdep, then it would be a problem as well.  Do people often use classdep?  I never have.

Having said that, there was a patch contributed to make the build system work under Java 8.  I’m planning to apply that patch soon and spin a release of 2.2.x as well.

Cheers,

Greg Trasuk

On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Dawid Loubser <da...@travellinck.com> wrote:

> I strongly support this! Peter's work needs to get out there and be
> battle-proven, and anything that even inches towards River/OSGi harmony
> needs to get out there so that people can experiment, build on top of, etc.
> Finally - and I may be wrong about this - River 3 will be the first
> version that plays well with Java 8? We really want to upgrade our
> production systems to Java 8, and one of the blockers is the
> (perceived?) notion that River 2.x does not work with Java 8.
> 
> It's a bit off-topic, but if I'm wrong about that last part, please let
> me know :-)
> 
> regards,
> Dawid Loubser
> 
> On 30/04/2015 17:13, Dennis Reedy wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I didn’t want to add this to the thread that Patricia started, but IMO I’d like us to push for a new release ASAP. Peter’s done a ton of work, there are improvements needed to the RMI classloading approach that can help projects out there today that use OSGi, and we have to do something.
>> 
>> What I’d like to suggest is we create version 3.0, rename the com.sun.jini namespace to org.apache.river, and produce a new release. Lets get this done over the next quarter. I know there are alot of details with this proposal, and esoteric discussions surrounding “what are we”, but we either release or die. IMO, its that simple.
>> 
>> If anyone does not like whats in 3.0, they can still use 2.2.2. If bug fixes are needed for 2.2.2 we can still provide support for it. Release early, release often.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Dennis
> 
> 

Re: New release

[Dawid Loubser <da...@travellinck.com>]

I strongly support this! Peter's work needs to get out there and be
battle-proven, and anything that even inches towards River/OSGi harmony
needs to get out there so that people can experiment, build on top of, etc.
Finally - and I may be wrong about this - River 3 will be the first
version that plays well with Java 8? We really want to upgrade our
production systems to Java 8, and one of the blockers is the
(perceived?) notion that River 2.x does not work with Java 8.

It's a bit off-topic, but if I'm wrong about that last part, please let
me know :-)

regards,
Dawid Loubser

On 30/04/2015 17:13, Dennis Reedy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I didn’t want to add this to the thread that Patricia started, but IMO I’d like us to push for a new release ASAP. Peter’s done a ton of work, there are improvements needed to the RMI classloading approach that can help projects out there today that use OSGi, and we have to do something.
>
> What I’d like to suggest is we create version 3.0, rename the com.sun.jini namespace to org.apache.river, and produce a new release. Lets get this done over the next quarter. I know there are alot of details with this proposal, and esoteric discussions surrounding “what are we”, but we either release or die. IMO, its that simple.
>
> If anyone does not like whats in 3.0, they can still use 2.2.2. If bug fixes are needed for 2.2.2 we can still provide support for it. Release early, release often.
>
> Regards
>
> Dennis

Re: New release

[Greg Trasuk <tr...@stratuscom.com>]

Apache is kind of like Yoda - release or do not, there is no candidate.  ;- )

“Release” is more of a licensing thing.. We’re putting out the Foundation’s assurance that the code is Apache-licensed and of known provenance.  River is perfectly free to put out a release where we can’t swear to the actual quality of the code.

I think what we agreed on was that we would release 3.0 as a kind of “technology preview” and let people have a go at it.

Cheers,

Greg Trasuk.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Bryan Thompson <br...@systap.com> wrote:

> Sounds good.  Does Apache do release candidates as well?  If not,
> let's make sure that the existing deployed footprint (which is large)
> has a chance to evaluate the branch before the 3.0 release.
> 
> Bryan
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Dennis Reedy <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I didn’t want to add this to the thread that Patricia started, but IMO I’d like us to push for a new release ASAP. Peter’s done a ton of work, there are improvements needed to the RMI classloading approach that can help projects out there today that use OSGi, and we have to do something.
>> 
>> What I’d like to suggest is we create version 3.0, rename the com.sun.jini namespace to org.apache.river, and produce a new release. Lets get this done over the next quarter. I know there are alot of details with this proposal, and esoteric discussions surrounding “what are we”, but we either release or die. IMO, its that simple.
>> 
>> If anyone does not like whats in 3.0, they can still use 2.2.2. If bug fixes are needed for 2.2.2 we can still provide support for it. Release early, release often.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Dennis

Re: New release

[Bryan Thompson <br...@systap.com>]

Sounds good.  Does Apache do release candidates as well?  If not,
let's make sure that the existing deployed footprint (which is large)
has a chance to evaluate the branch before the 3.0 release.

Bryan


On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Dennis Reedy <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I didn’t want to add this to the thread that Patricia started, but IMO I’d like us to push for a new release ASAP. Peter’s done a ton of work, there are improvements needed to the RMI classloading approach that can help projects out there today that use OSGi, and we have to do something.
>
> What I’d like to suggest is we create version 3.0, rename the com.sun.jini namespace to org.apache.river, and produce a new release. Lets get this done over the next quarter. I know there are alot of details with this proposal, and esoteric discussions surrounding “what are we”, but we either release or die. IMO, its that simple.
>
> If anyone does not like whats in 3.0, they can still use 2.2.2. If bug fixes are needed for 2.2.2 we can still provide support for it. Release early, release often.
>
> Regards
>
> Dennis

Re: New release

[Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>]

I can free up some cycles. Unfortunately, the last time I was closely 
involved in a software release was over 30 years ago - I switched to 
system performance and hardware architecture. Even then, I was the 
compiler project leader, not the release coordinator.

On the other hand, I can free up some cycles. Would it be feasible for 
me to act as release manager from the point of view of trying to drive 
action, with Greg and others looking over my shoulder and telling me 
what needs doing?

On 4/30/2015 9:12 AM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>
> I would have sworn that we had consensus six months ago to merge
> Peter’s work from the qa_refactor branch back onto the trunk.  Peter
> needs to declare it “done”, and other people need to look at it, then
> someone needs to release it.
>
> Unfortunately I don’t have the spare cycles to act as release manager
> for that, although I’m happy to offer advice on how to get the
> artifacts into Maven Central, etc.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg Trasuk.
>
> On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dennis Reedy <de...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I didn’t want to add this to the thread that Patricia started, but
>> IMO I’d like us to push for a new release ASAP. Peter’s done a ton
>> of work, there are improvements needed to the RMI classloading
>> approach that can help projects out there today that use OSGi, and
>> we have to do something.
>>
>> What I’d like to suggest is we create version 3.0, rename the
>> com.sun.jini namespace to org.apache.river, and produce a new
>> release. Lets get this done over the next quarter. I know there are
>> alot of details with this proposal, and esoteric discussions
>> surrounding “what are we”, but we either release or die. IMO, its
>> that simple.
>>
>> If anyone does not like whats in 3.0, they can still use 2.2.2. If
>> bug fixes are needed for 2.2.2 we can still provide support for it.
>> Release early, release often.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Dennis
>

Re: New release

[Greg Trasuk <tr...@stratuscom.com>]

I would have sworn that we had consensus six months ago to merge Peter’s work from the qa_refactor branch back onto the trunk.  Peter needs to declare it “done”, and other people need to look at it, then someone needs to release it.

Unfortunately I don’t have the spare cycles to act as release manager for that, although I’m happy to offer advice on how to get the artifacts into Maven Central, etc.

Cheers,

Greg Trasuk.

On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dennis Reedy <de...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I didn’t want to add this to the thread that Patricia started, but IMO I’d like us to push for a new release ASAP. Peter’s done a ton of work, there are improvements needed to the RMI classloading approach that can help projects out there today that use OSGi, and we have to do something.
> 
> What I’d like to suggest is we create version 3.0, rename the com.sun.jini namespace to org.apache.river, and produce a new release. Lets get this done over the next quarter. I know there are alot of details with this proposal, and esoteric discussions surrounding “what are we”, but we either release or die. IMO, its that simple.
> 
> If anyone does not like whats in 3.0, they can still use 2.2.2. If bug fixes are needed for 2.2.2 we can still provide support for it. Release early, release often.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Dennis