You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@aries.apache.org by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> on 2015/06/15 22:18:22 UTC
Planning to do an Aries Subsystems release soon
Hi all,
As the OSGi R6 Subsystems implementation is now merged into trunk I
was thinking of doing a subsystems release soon, possibly later this
week.
Previously we released the following artifacts:
subsystem-api
subsystem-core
subsystem-obr
subsystem-bundle
I don't think it makes sense to release subsystem-obr as OBR now
implements the Repository spec so this proprietary integration is not
needed any more. I would actually propose to remove this bundle.
On the subsystem-bundle (artifact ID org.apache.aries.subsystem). Does
anybody actually use this? It seems like this is the same as
subsystem-core and subsystem-api merged. I don't think there is a need
for this bundle, so I would propose to remove it too.
Final topic is the version number. Exported packages use semantic
versioning, no question about that but how will we version the
released bundles?
a) subsystem-api 1.2.0 and subsystem-core 1.3.0?
b) subsystem-api 2.0.0 and subsystem-core 2.0.0?
I guess b) is more in line with the recent discussion about bulk
releasing components?
Cheers,
David
Re: Planning to do an Aries Subsystems release soon
Posted by Thomas Watson <tj...@us.ibm.com>.
Fine with me.
Tom
From: David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>
To: "dev@aries.apache.org" <de...@aries.apache.org>
Date: 06/22/2015 05:08 PM
Subject: Re: Planning to do an Aries Subsystems release soon
Thanks Tom!
We are at 2.0.1 because I actually created and staged 2.0.0 and then
discovered that this bug had a patch ready to be applied. So even
before sending the vote email out I cancelled that release.
Personally I would prefer to simply move ahead to 2.0.1 and call the
release that (so there won't be a public 2.0.0), as that is simpler
from a maven-workflow pov. Unless anyone has a strong objection to
that...
Cheers,
David
On 22 June 2015 at 22:51, Thomas Watson <tj...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> I'm applied the patch for 1307. It was failing because the itests were
> not running against the latest. To fix that I updated the itests
pom.xml
> to refer to 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT of org.apache.aries.subsystem.core. But I am
> confused how we got to version 2.0.1 for the subsystem.core bundle. I
> would assume it would still be at version 2.0.0 given the discussion
here.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> From: David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>
> To: "dev@aries.apache.org" <de...@aries.apache.org>
> Date: 06/18/2015 06:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Planning to do an Aries Subsystems release soon
>
>
>
> I just started to prepare the Subsystems release but am now seeing
> that there is an open issue with a provided patch:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-1307
>
> I'll look into applying the patch soon.
>
> Are there any other open Subsystem issues that people are aware of
> that we should apply a fix for before releasing subsystems?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> On 16 June 2015 at 14:24, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>> For versioning, b looks better for me.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 06/15/2015 10:18 PM, David Bosschaert wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As the OSGi R6 Subsystems implementation is now merged into trunk I
>>> was thinking of doing a subsystems release soon, possibly later this
>>> week.
>>>
>>> Previously we released the following artifacts:
>>> subsystem-api
>>> subsystem-core
>>> subsystem-obr
>>> subsystem-bundle
>>>
>>> I don't think it makes sense to release subsystem-obr as OBR now
>>> implements the Repository spec so this proprietary integration is not
>>> needed any more. I would actually propose to remove this bundle.
>>>
>>> On the subsystem-bundle (artifact ID org.apache.aries.subsystem). Does
>>> anybody actually use this? It seems like this is the same as
>>> subsystem-core and subsystem-api merged. I don't think there is a need
>>> for this bundle, so I would propose to remove it too.
>>>
>>> Final topic is the version number. Exported packages use semantic
>>> versioning, no question about that but how will we version the
>>> released bundles?
>>> a) subsystem-api 1.2.0 and subsystem-core 1.3.0?
>>> b) subsystem-api 2.0.0 and subsystem-core 2.0.0?
>>>
>>> I guess b) is more in line with the recent discussion about bulk
>>> releasing components?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
>
Re: Planning to do an Aries Subsystems release soon
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Tom!
We are at 2.0.1 because I actually created and staged 2.0.0 and then
discovered that this bug had a patch ready to be applied. So even
before sending the vote email out I cancelled that release.
Personally I would prefer to simply move ahead to 2.0.1 and call the
release that (so there won't be a public 2.0.0), as that is simpler
from a maven-workflow pov. Unless anyone has a strong objection to
that...
Cheers,
David
On 22 June 2015 at 22:51, Thomas Watson <tj...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> I'm applied the patch for 1307. It was failing because the itests were
> not running against the latest. To fix that I updated the itests pom.xml
> to refer to 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT of org.apache.aries.subsystem.core. But I am
> confused how we got to version 2.0.1 for the subsystem.core bundle. I
> would assume it would still be at version 2.0.0 given the discussion here.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> From: David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>
> To: "dev@aries.apache.org" <de...@aries.apache.org>
> Date: 06/18/2015 06:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Planning to do an Aries Subsystems release soon
>
>
>
> I just started to prepare the Subsystems release but am now seeing
> that there is an open issue with a provided patch:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-1307
>
> I'll look into applying the patch soon.
>
> Are there any other open Subsystem issues that people are aware of
> that we should apply a fix for before releasing subsystems?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> On 16 June 2015 at 14:24, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>> For versioning, b looks better for me.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 06/15/2015 10:18 PM, David Bosschaert wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As the OSGi R6 Subsystems implementation is now merged into trunk I
>>> was thinking of doing a subsystems release soon, possibly later this
>>> week.
>>>
>>> Previously we released the following artifacts:
>>> subsystem-api
>>> subsystem-core
>>> subsystem-obr
>>> subsystem-bundle
>>>
>>> I don't think it makes sense to release subsystem-obr as OBR now
>>> implements the Repository spec so this proprietary integration is not
>>> needed any more. I would actually propose to remove this bundle.
>>>
>>> On the subsystem-bundle (artifact ID org.apache.aries.subsystem). Does
>>> anybody actually use this? It seems like this is the same as
>>> subsystem-core and subsystem-api merged. I don't think there is a need
>>> for this bundle, so I would propose to remove it too.
>>>
>>> Final topic is the version number. Exported packages use semantic
>>> versioning, no question about that but how will we version the
>>> released bundles?
>>> a) subsystem-api 1.2.0 and subsystem-core 1.3.0?
>>> b) subsystem-api 2.0.0 and subsystem-core 2.0.0?
>>>
>>> I guess b) is more in line with the recent discussion about bulk
>>> releasing components?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
>
Re: Planning to do an Aries Subsystems release soon
Posted by Thomas Watson <tj...@us.ibm.com>.
I'm applied the patch for 1307. It was failing because the itests were
not running against the latest. To fix that I updated the itests pom.xml
to refer to 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT of org.apache.aries.subsystem.core. But I am
confused how we got to version 2.0.1 for the subsystem.core bundle. I
would assume it would still be at version 2.0.0 given the discussion here.
Tom
From: David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>
To: "dev@aries.apache.org" <de...@aries.apache.org>
Date: 06/18/2015 06:56 AM
Subject: Re: Planning to do an Aries Subsystems release soon
I just started to prepare the Subsystems release but am now seeing
that there is an open issue with a provided patch:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-1307
I'll look into applying the patch soon.
Are there any other open Subsystem issues that people are aware of
that we should apply a fix for before releasing subsystems?
Thanks,
David
On 16 June 2015 at 14:24, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> For versioning, b looks better for me.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 06/15/2015 10:18 PM, David Bosschaert wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As the OSGi R6 Subsystems implementation is now merged into trunk I
>> was thinking of doing a subsystems release soon, possibly later this
>> week.
>>
>> Previously we released the following artifacts:
>> subsystem-api
>> subsystem-core
>> subsystem-obr
>> subsystem-bundle
>>
>> I don't think it makes sense to release subsystem-obr as OBR now
>> implements the Repository spec so this proprietary integration is not
>> needed any more. I would actually propose to remove this bundle.
>>
>> On the subsystem-bundle (artifact ID org.apache.aries.subsystem). Does
>> anybody actually use this? It seems like this is the same as
>> subsystem-core and subsystem-api merged. I don't think there is a need
>> for this bundle, so I would propose to remove it too.
>>
>> Final topic is the version number. Exported packages use semantic
>> versioning, no question about that but how will we version the
>> released bundles?
>> a) subsystem-api 1.2.0 and subsystem-core 1.3.0?
>> b) subsystem-api 2.0.0 and subsystem-core 2.0.0?
>>
>> I guess b) is more in line with the recent discussion about bulk
>> releasing components?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> David
>>
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: Planning to do an Aries Subsystems release soon
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
I just started to prepare the Subsystems release but am now seeing
that there is an open issue with a provided patch:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-1307
I'll look into applying the patch soon.
Are there any other open Subsystem issues that people are aware of
that we should apply a fix for before releasing subsystems?
Thanks,
David
On 16 June 2015 at 14:24, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> For versioning, b looks better for me.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 06/15/2015 10:18 PM, David Bosschaert wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As the OSGi R6 Subsystems implementation is now merged into trunk I
>> was thinking of doing a subsystems release soon, possibly later this
>> week.
>>
>> Previously we released the following artifacts:
>> subsystem-api
>> subsystem-core
>> subsystem-obr
>> subsystem-bundle
>>
>> I don't think it makes sense to release subsystem-obr as OBR now
>> implements the Repository spec so this proprietary integration is not
>> needed any more. I would actually propose to remove this bundle.
>>
>> On the subsystem-bundle (artifact ID org.apache.aries.subsystem). Does
>> anybody actually use this? It seems like this is the same as
>> subsystem-core and subsystem-api merged. I don't think there is a need
>> for this bundle, so I would propose to remove it too.
>>
>> Final topic is the version number. Exported packages use semantic
>> versioning, no question about that but how will we version the
>> released bundles?
>> a) subsystem-api 1.2.0 and subsystem-core 1.3.0?
>> b) subsystem-api 2.0.0 and subsystem-core 2.0.0?
>>
>> I guess b) is more in line with the recent discussion about bulk
>> releasing components?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> David
>>
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: Planning to do an Aries Subsystems release soon
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
For versioning, b looks better for me.
Regards
JB
On 06/15/2015 10:18 PM, David Bosschaert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As the OSGi R6 Subsystems implementation is now merged into trunk I
> was thinking of doing a subsystems release soon, possibly later this
> week.
>
> Previously we released the following artifacts:
> subsystem-api
> subsystem-core
> subsystem-obr
> subsystem-bundle
>
> I don't think it makes sense to release subsystem-obr as OBR now
> implements the Repository spec so this proprietary integration is not
> needed any more. I would actually propose to remove this bundle.
>
> On the subsystem-bundle (artifact ID org.apache.aries.subsystem). Does
> anybody actually use this? It seems like this is the same as
> subsystem-core and subsystem-api merged. I don't think there is a need
> for this bundle, so I would propose to remove it too.
>
> Final topic is the version number. Exported packages use semantic
> versioning, no question about that but how will we version the
> released bundles?
> a) subsystem-api 1.2.0 and subsystem-core 1.3.0?
> b) subsystem-api 2.0.0 and subsystem-core 2.0.0?
>
> I guess b) is more in line with the recent discussion about bulk
> releasing components?
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: Planning to do an Aries Subsystems release soon
Posted by Kamesh Sampath <ka...@liferay.com>.
Hi David,
My 2c on "org.apache.aries.subsystem": lets have it and sem versioned inline with API as it allows the user to deploy one single bundle with API and Provider.
On version number I agree with your option (b) as that makes more sense.
-Kamesh
On 16/06/15 1:48 am, "David Bosschaert" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>As the OSGi R6 Subsystems implementation is now merged into trunk I
>was thinking of doing a subsystems release soon, possibly later this
>week.
>
>Previously we released the following artifacts:
> subsystem-api
> subsystem-core
> subsystem-obr
> subsystem-bundle
>
>I don't think it makes sense to release subsystem-obr as OBR now
>implements the Repository spec so this proprietary integration is not
>needed any more. I would actually propose to remove this bundle.
>
>On the subsystem-bundle (artifact ID org.apache.aries.subsystem). Does
>anybody actually use this? It seems like this is the same as
>subsystem-core and subsystem-api merged. I don't think there is a need
>for this bundle, so I would propose to remove it too.
>
>Final topic is the version number. Exported packages use semantic
>versioning, no question about that but how will we version the
>released bundles?
>a) subsystem-api 1.2.0 and subsystem-core 1.3.0?
>b) subsystem-api 2.0.0 and subsystem-core 2.0.0?
>
>I guess b) is more in line with the recent discussion about bulk
>releasing components?
>
>Cheers,
>
>David