You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@isis.apache.org by Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk> on 2015/08/15 12:21:07 UTC
Ready for a 1.9.0 release?
Hi folks (send this to dev ML, cc'ing the users ML)
Just to say that we're well overdue for a release - and I've well aware
that Ive semi-promised to cut a release for several of the last months and
then not done so.
So this is to say that I'm intending to cut a release next weekend (ie
22/23rd Aug), unless anyone in this coming week finds a show-stopper.
I'd appreciate it if you could to upgrade to the latest snapshot (which
includes moving up to the latest-n-greatest DN 4.1), and also (optionally)
to port your app to using the new AppManifest stuff (should simplify
bootstrapping and long term maintainability). The migration notes [1]
should help
~~~
And, after 1.9.0 is released, what do people think about moving to a more
regular schedule, eg once every month? I know that Apache Wicket and
Apache Deltaspike are able to maintain this sort of schedule; our release
procedures are now reasonably well documented/automated [2] so I think it'd
be good to follow this practice. Thoughts?
Thanks all
Dan
[1]
http://isis.apache.org/migration-notes.html#_release-notes_migration-notes_1.8.0-to-1.9.0
[2] http://isis.apache.org/guides/cg.html#_cg_committers_cutting-a-release
Re: Ready for a 1.9.0 release?
Posted by GESCONSULTOR <o....@gesconsultor.com>.
Ok Dan.
We will upgrade our project as is to latest snapshot to verify compatibility.
Finally we will be able to do it this week.
Keep you informed.
Cheers!
> El 17/8/2015, a las 11:41, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk> escribió:
>
> Hi Oscar,
>
> I don't think we necessarily need you to verify the AppManifest/AppSpec stuff... we've migrated Estatio over but I'd like to ensure the "old" way still works, so in some ways having an app that's using the latest snapshot but not migrated over to AppManifest would be good.
>
> The main thing is like us to confirm that running against DN4.1.2 (as per latest snapshot) is ok.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan.
>
>> On 17 Aug 2015 09:56, "GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou" <o....@gesconsultor.com> wrote:
>> Hi Dan.
>>
>> Seems perfect to me to have a monthly release schedule
>>
>> Regarding releasing 1.9.0 now we’re currently with a 1.9.0 SNAPSHOT but this week will be difficult to migrate and test our platform to verify all tests still pass after the AppSpecs changes.
>>
>> If you consider those tests are needed, next week would be better for us, when dev team return from holidays, but perhaps that’s not needed.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Oscar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> El 16/8/2015, a las 9:50, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk> escribió:
>>>
>>> On 16 August 2015 at 08:16, Kevin Meyer <ke...@kmz.co.za> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Question: Given the changes, shouldn't we release a major release (2.0.0)
>>>> [1]? The API certainly has changed since 1.7 (I call annotations part of
>>>> the API).
>>> As you say, we aim to follow semantic versioning. But although we've
>>> deprecated those old annotations they are still supported; which means that
>>> we stay on 1.x codeline. (I'm looking forward to moving up to 2.0 at some
>>> point in the future so I can delete a bunch of deprecated stuff, but I
>>> don't think it's been deprecated for long enough... the old annotations
>>> were deprecated less than a year ago)
>>>
>>> While on this topic, worth saying that setting the
>>> "isis.reflector.validator.allowDeprecated" configuration property to false
>>> is a useful migration step as it will flag all uses of the deprecated
>>> annotations. [2]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Re: your proposal for regular releases after this should be ok to push
>>>> enhancements out into non-snapshot release, my only concern is that
>>>> regularly releases should be OK as long as user devs developing with our
>>>> platform don't have to change any existing code.
>>> Absolutely, the intention is that it we would maintain backward
>>> compatibility of the programming model (annotations etc).
>>>
>>> As can be seen through the various 1.x releases, we have changed/improved
>>> the bootstrapping and organization of code, and that might continue. eg
>>> the move to DN 4.x changes some of the pom.xml entries, and the new
>>> appManifest stuff recommends introducing a new "myapp-app" module. See
>>> migration notes [3]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's OK if it's a bugfix/feature/enhancement that adds new functionality,
>>>> when user devs just add more code to access it - but I would be concerned
>>>> about monthly releases that require changes to code in production....
>>> Agreed; that's not the intention.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm interested in other opinions..
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> PS: The new asciidoc website looks really good!
>>> Cheers... it took some work, and still work in progress, but I'm pleased
>>> with how it's turned out and also how easy it is to update.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> [1] http://semver.org/
>>> [2] http://isis.apache.org/guides/rg.html#_rg_runtime_configuring-core
>>> [3]
>>> http://isis.apache.org/migration-notes.html#_release-notes_migration-notes_1.8.0-to-1.9.0
>>
>>
>> Óscar Bou Bou
>> Responsable de Producto
>> Auditor Jefe de Certificación ISO 27001 en BSI
>> CISA, CRISC, APMG ISO 20000, ITIL-F
>>
>> 902 900 231 / 620 267 520
>> http://www.twitter.com/oscarbou
>>
>> http://es.linkedin.com/in/oscarbou
>>
>> http://www.GesConsultor.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Este mensaje y los ficheros anexos son confidenciales. Los mismos contienen información reservada que no puede ser difundida. Si usted ha recibido este correo por error, tenga la amabilidad de eliminarlo de su sistema y avisar al remitente mediante reenvío a su dirección electrónica; no deberá copiar el mensaje ni divulgar su contenido a ninguna persona.
>> Su dirección de correo electrónico junto a sus datos personales constan en un fichero titularidad de Gesdatos Software, S.L. cuya finalidad es la de mantener el contacto con Ud. Si quiere saber de qué información disponemos de Ud., modificarla, y en su caso, cancelarla, puede hacerlo enviando un escrito al efecto, acompañado de una fotocopia de su D.N.I. a la siguiente dirección: Gesdatos Software, S.L. , Paseo de la Castellana, 153 bajo - 28046 (Madrid), y Avda. Cortes Valencianas num. 50, 1ºC - 46015 (Valencia). Asimismo, es su responsabilidad comprobar que este mensaje o sus archivos adjuntos no contengan virus informáticos, y en caso que los tuvieran eliminarlos.
Re: Ready for a 1.9.0 release?
Posted by GESCONSULTOR <o....@gesconsultor.com>.
Ok Dan.
We will upgrade our project as is to latest snapshot to verify compatibility.
Finally we will be able to do it this week.
Keep you informed.
Cheers!
> El 17/8/2015, a las 11:41, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk> escribió:
>
> Hi Oscar,
>
> I don't think we necessarily need you to verify the AppManifest/AppSpec stuff... we've migrated Estatio over but I'd like to ensure the "old" way still works, so in some ways having an app that's using the latest snapshot but not migrated over to AppManifest would be good.
>
> The main thing is like us to confirm that running against DN4.1.2 (as per latest snapshot) is ok.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan.
>
>> On 17 Aug 2015 09:56, "GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou" <o....@gesconsultor.com> wrote:
>> Hi Dan.
>>
>> Seems perfect to me to have a monthly release schedule
>>
>> Regarding releasing 1.9.0 now we’re currently with a 1.9.0 SNAPSHOT but this week will be difficult to migrate and test our platform to verify all tests still pass after the AppSpecs changes.
>>
>> If you consider those tests are needed, next week would be better for us, when dev team return from holidays, but perhaps that’s not needed.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Oscar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> El 16/8/2015, a las 9:50, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk> escribió:
>>>
>>> On 16 August 2015 at 08:16, Kevin Meyer <ke...@kmz.co.za> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Question: Given the changes, shouldn't we release a major release (2.0.0)
>>>> [1]? The API certainly has changed since 1.7 (I call annotations part of
>>>> the API).
>>> As you say, we aim to follow semantic versioning. But although we've
>>> deprecated those old annotations they are still supported; which means that
>>> we stay on 1.x codeline. (I'm looking forward to moving up to 2.0 at some
>>> point in the future so I can delete a bunch of deprecated stuff, but I
>>> don't think it's been deprecated for long enough... the old annotations
>>> were deprecated less than a year ago)
>>>
>>> While on this topic, worth saying that setting the
>>> "isis.reflector.validator.allowDeprecated" configuration property to false
>>> is a useful migration step as it will flag all uses of the deprecated
>>> annotations. [2]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Re: your proposal for regular releases after this should be ok to push
>>>> enhancements out into non-snapshot release, my only concern is that
>>>> regularly releases should be OK as long as user devs developing with our
>>>> platform don't have to change any existing code.
>>> Absolutely, the intention is that it we would maintain backward
>>> compatibility of the programming model (annotations etc).
>>>
>>> As can be seen through the various 1.x releases, we have changed/improved
>>> the bootstrapping and organization of code, and that might continue. eg
>>> the move to DN 4.x changes some of the pom.xml entries, and the new
>>> appManifest stuff recommends introducing a new "myapp-app" module. See
>>> migration notes [3]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's OK if it's a bugfix/feature/enhancement that adds new functionality,
>>>> when user devs just add more code to access it - but I would be concerned
>>>> about monthly releases that require changes to code in production....
>>> Agreed; that's not the intention.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm interested in other opinions..
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> PS: The new asciidoc website looks really good!
>>> Cheers... it took some work, and still work in progress, but I'm pleased
>>> with how it's turned out and also how easy it is to update.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> [1] http://semver.org/
>>> [2] http://isis.apache.org/guides/rg.html#_rg_runtime_configuring-core
>>> [3]
>>> http://isis.apache.org/migration-notes.html#_release-notes_migration-notes_1.8.0-to-1.9.0
>>
>>
>> Óscar Bou Bou
>> Responsable de Producto
>> Auditor Jefe de Certificación ISO 27001 en BSI
>> CISA, CRISC, APMG ISO 20000, ITIL-F
>>
>> 902 900 231 / 620 267 520
>> http://www.twitter.com/oscarbou
>>
>> http://es.linkedin.com/in/oscarbou
>>
>> http://www.GesConsultor.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Este mensaje y los ficheros anexos son confidenciales. Los mismos contienen información reservada que no puede ser difundida. Si usted ha recibido este correo por error, tenga la amabilidad de eliminarlo de su sistema y avisar al remitente mediante reenvío a su dirección electrónica; no deberá copiar el mensaje ni divulgar su contenido a ninguna persona.
>> Su dirección de correo electrónico junto a sus datos personales constan en un fichero titularidad de Gesdatos Software, S.L. cuya finalidad es la de mantener el contacto con Ud. Si quiere saber de qué información disponemos de Ud., modificarla, y en su caso, cancelarla, puede hacerlo enviando un escrito al efecto, acompañado de una fotocopia de su D.N.I. a la siguiente dirección: Gesdatos Software, S.L. , Paseo de la Castellana, 153 bajo - 28046 (Madrid), y Avda. Cortes Valencianas num. 50, 1ºC - 46015 (Valencia). Asimismo, es su responsabilidad comprobar que este mensaje o sus archivos adjuntos no contengan virus informáticos, y en caso que los tuvieran eliminarlos.
Re: Ready for a 1.9.0 release?
Posted by Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>.
Hi Oscar,
I don't think we necessarily need you to verify the AppManifest/AppSpec
stuff... we've migrated Estatio over but I'd like to ensure the "old" way
still works, so in some ways having an app that's using the latest snapshot
but not migrated over to AppManifest would be good.
The main thing is like us to confirm that running against DN4.1.2 (as per
latest snapshot) is ok.
Cheers,
Dan.
On 17 Aug 2015 09:56, "GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou" <o....@gesconsultor.com>
wrote:
> Hi Dan.
>
> Seems perfect to me to have a monthly release schedule
>
> Regarding releasing 1.9.0 now we’re currently with a 1.9.0 SNAPSHOT but
> this week will be difficult to migrate and test our platform to verify all
> tests still pass after the AppSpecs changes.
>
> If you consider those tests are needed, next week would be better for us,
> when dev team return from holidays, but perhaps that’s not needed.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Oscar
>
>
>
>
> El 16/8/2015, a las 9:50, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
> escribió:
>
> On 16 August 2015 at 08:16, Kevin Meyer <ke...@kmz.co.za> wrote:
>
>
> Question: Given the changes, shouldn't we release a major release (2.0.0)
> [1]? The API certainly has changed since 1.7 (I call annotations part of
> the API).
>
>
> As you say, we aim to follow semantic versioning. But although we've
> deprecated those old annotations they are still supported; which means that
> we stay on 1.x codeline. (I'm looking forward to moving up to 2.0 at some
> point in the future so I can delete a bunch of deprecated stuff, but I
> don't think it's been deprecated for long enough... the old annotations
> were deprecated less than a year ago)
>
> While on this topic, worth saying that setting the
> "isis.reflector.validator.allowDeprecated" configuration property to false
> is a useful migration step as it will flag all uses of the deprecated
> annotations. [2]
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: your proposal for regular releases after this should be ok to push
> enhancements out into non-snapshot release, my only concern is that
> regularly releases should be OK as long as user devs developing with our
> platform don't have to change any existing code.
>
>
> Absolutely, the intention is that it we would maintain backward
> compatibility of the programming model (annotations etc).
>
> As can be seen through the various 1.x releases, we have changed/improved
> the bootstrapping and organization of code, and that might continue. eg
> the move to DN 4.x changes some of the pom.xml entries, and the new
> appManifest stuff recommends introducing a new "myapp-app" module. See
> migration notes [3]
>
>
>
>
> It's OK if it's a bugfix/feature/enhancement that adds new functionality,
> when user devs just add more code to access it - but I would be concerned
> about monthly releases that require changes to code in production....
>
>
> Agreed; that's not the intention.
>
>
>
> I'm interested in other opinions..
>
> Cheers!
> Kevin
>
> PS: The new asciidoc website looks really good!
>
>
> Cheers... it took some work, and still work in progress, but I'm pleased
> with how it's turned out and also how easy it is to update.
>
>
>
>
> [1] http://semver.org/
>
>
> [2] http://isis.apache.org/guides/rg.html#_rg_runtime_configuring-core
> [3]
>
> http://isis.apache.org/migration-notes.html#_release-notes_migration-notes_1.8.0-to-1.9.0
>
>
>
> Óscar Bou Bou
> Responsable de Producto
> Auditor Jefe de Certificación ISO 27001 en BSI
> CISA, CRISC, APMG ISO 20000, ITIL-F
>
> 902 900 231 / 620 267 520
> http://www.twitter.com/oscarbou
>
> http://es.linkedin.com/in/oscarbou
>
> http://www.GesConsultor.com <http://www.gesconsultor.com/>
>
>
>
> Este mensaje y los ficheros anexos son confidenciales. Los mismos
> contienen información reservada que no puede ser difundida. Si usted ha
> recibido este correo por error, tenga la amabilidad de eliminarlo de su
> sistema y avisar al remitente mediante reenvío a su dirección electrónica;
> no deberá copiar el mensaje ni divulgar su contenido a ninguna persona.
> Su dirección de correo electrónico junto a sus datos personales constan en
> un fichero titularidad de Gesdatos Software, S.L. cuya finalidad es la de
> mantener el contacto con Ud. Si quiere saber de qué información disponemos
> de Ud., modificarla, y en su caso, cancelarla, puede hacerlo enviando un
> escrito al efecto, acompañado de una fotocopia de su D.N.I. a la siguiente
> dirección: Gesdatos Software, S.L. , Paseo de la Castellana, 153 bajo -
> 28046 (Madrid), y Avda. Cortes Valencianas num. 50, 1ºC - 46015 (Valencia).
> Asimismo, es su responsabilidad comprobar que este mensaje o sus archivos
> adjuntos no contengan virus informáticos, y en caso que los tuvieran
> eliminarlos.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Ready for a 1.9.0 release?
Posted by Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>.
Hi Oscar,
I don't think we necessarily need you to verify the AppManifest/AppSpec
stuff... we've migrated Estatio over but I'd like to ensure the "old" way
still works, so in some ways having an app that's using the latest snapshot
but not migrated over to AppManifest would be good.
The main thing is like us to confirm that running against DN4.1.2 (as per
latest snapshot) is ok.
Cheers,
Dan.
On 17 Aug 2015 09:56, "GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou" <o....@gesconsultor.com>
wrote:
> Hi Dan.
>
> Seems perfect to me to have a monthly release schedule
>
> Regarding releasing 1.9.0 now we’re currently with a 1.9.0 SNAPSHOT but
> this week will be difficult to migrate and test our platform to verify all
> tests still pass after the AppSpecs changes.
>
> If you consider those tests are needed, next week would be better for us,
> when dev team return from holidays, but perhaps that’s not needed.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Oscar
>
>
>
>
> El 16/8/2015, a las 9:50, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
> escribió:
>
> On 16 August 2015 at 08:16, Kevin Meyer <ke...@kmz.co.za> wrote:
>
>
> Question: Given the changes, shouldn't we release a major release (2.0.0)
> [1]? The API certainly has changed since 1.7 (I call annotations part of
> the API).
>
>
> As you say, we aim to follow semantic versioning. But although we've
> deprecated those old annotations they are still supported; which means that
> we stay on 1.x codeline. (I'm looking forward to moving up to 2.0 at some
> point in the future so I can delete a bunch of deprecated stuff, but I
> don't think it's been deprecated for long enough... the old annotations
> were deprecated less than a year ago)
>
> While on this topic, worth saying that setting the
> "isis.reflector.validator.allowDeprecated" configuration property to false
> is a useful migration step as it will flag all uses of the deprecated
> annotations. [2]
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: your proposal for regular releases after this should be ok to push
> enhancements out into non-snapshot release, my only concern is that
> regularly releases should be OK as long as user devs developing with our
> platform don't have to change any existing code.
>
>
> Absolutely, the intention is that it we would maintain backward
> compatibility of the programming model (annotations etc).
>
> As can be seen through the various 1.x releases, we have changed/improved
> the bootstrapping and organization of code, and that might continue. eg
> the move to DN 4.x changes some of the pom.xml entries, and the new
> appManifest stuff recommends introducing a new "myapp-app" module. See
> migration notes [3]
>
>
>
>
> It's OK if it's a bugfix/feature/enhancement that adds new functionality,
> when user devs just add more code to access it - but I would be concerned
> about monthly releases that require changes to code in production....
>
>
> Agreed; that's not the intention.
>
>
>
> I'm interested in other opinions..
>
> Cheers!
> Kevin
>
> PS: The new asciidoc website looks really good!
>
>
> Cheers... it took some work, and still work in progress, but I'm pleased
> with how it's turned out and also how easy it is to update.
>
>
>
>
> [1] http://semver.org/
>
>
> [2] http://isis.apache.org/guides/rg.html#_rg_runtime_configuring-core
> [3]
>
> http://isis.apache.org/migration-notes.html#_release-notes_migration-notes_1.8.0-to-1.9.0
>
>
>
> Óscar Bou Bou
> Responsable de Producto
> Auditor Jefe de Certificación ISO 27001 en BSI
> CISA, CRISC, APMG ISO 20000, ITIL-F
>
> 902 900 231 / 620 267 520
> http://www.twitter.com/oscarbou
>
> http://es.linkedin.com/in/oscarbou
>
> http://www.GesConsultor.com <http://www.gesconsultor.com/>
>
>
>
> Este mensaje y los ficheros anexos son confidenciales. Los mismos
> contienen información reservada que no puede ser difundida. Si usted ha
> recibido este correo por error, tenga la amabilidad de eliminarlo de su
> sistema y avisar al remitente mediante reenvío a su dirección electrónica;
> no deberá copiar el mensaje ni divulgar su contenido a ninguna persona.
> Su dirección de correo electrónico junto a sus datos personales constan en
> un fichero titularidad de Gesdatos Software, S.L. cuya finalidad es la de
> mantener el contacto con Ud. Si quiere saber de qué información disponemos
> de Ud., modificarla, y en su caso, cancelarla, puede hacerlo enviando un
> escrito al efecto, acompañado de una fotocopia de su D.N.I. a la siguiente
> dirección: Gesdatos Software, S.L. , Paseo de la Castellana, 153 bajo -
> 28046 (Madrid), y Avda. Cortes Valencianas num. 50, 1ºC - 46015 (Valencia).
> Asimismo, es su responsabilidad comprobar que este mensaje o sus archivos
> adjuntos no contengan virus informáticos, y en caso que los tuvieran
> eliminarlos.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Ready for a 1.9.0 release?
Posted by GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou <o....@gesconsultor.com>.
Hi Dan.
Seems perfect to me to have a monthly release schedule
Regarding releasing 1.9.0 now we’re currently with a 1.9.0 SNAPSHOT but this week will be difficult to migrate and test our platform to verify all tests still pass after the AppSpecs changes.
If you consider those tests are needed, next week would be better for us, when dev team return from holidays, but perhaps that’s not needed.
Regards,
Oscar
> El 16/8/2015, a las 9:50, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk> escribió:
>
> On 16 August 2015 at 08:16, Kevin Meyer <ke...@kmz.co.za> wrote:
>
>>
>> Question: Given the changes, shouldn't we release a major release (2.0.0)
>> [1]? The API certainly has changed since 1.7 (I call annotations part of
>> the API).
>>
>>
> As you say, we aim to follow semantic versioning. But although we've
> deprecated those old annotations they are still supported; which means that
> we stay on 1.x codeline. (I'm looking forward to moving up to 2.0 at some
> point in the future so I can delete a bunch of deprecated stuff, but I
> don't think it's been deprecated for long enough... the old annotations
> were deprecated less than a year ago)
>
> While on this topic, worth saying that setting the
> "isis.reflector.validator.allowDeprecated" configuration property to false
> is a useful migration step as it will flag all uses of the deprecated
> annotations. [2]
>
>
>
>
>
>> Re: your proposal for regular releases after this should be ok to push
>> enhancements out into non-snapshot release, my only concern is that
>> regularly releases should be OK as long as user devs developing with our
>> platform don't have to change any existing code.
>>
>>
> Absolutely, the intention is that it we would maintain backward
> compatibility of the programming model (annotations etc).
>
> As can be seen through the various 1.x releases, we have changed/improved
> the bootstrapping and organization of code, and that might continue. eg
> the move to DN 4.x changes some of the pom.xml entries, and the new
> appManifest stuff recommends introducing a new "myapp-app" module. See
> migration notes [3]
>
>
>
>
>> It's OK if it's a bugfix/feature/enhancement that adds new functionality,
>> when user devs just add more code to access it - but I would be concerned
>> about monthly releases that require changes to code in production....
>>
>>
> Agreed; that's not the intention.
>
>
>
>> I'm interested in other opinions..
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Kevin
>>
>> PS: The new asciidoc website looks really good!
>>
>>
> Cheers... it took some work, and still work in progress, but I'm pleased
> with how it's turned out and also how easy it is to update.
>
>
>
>
>> [1] http://semver.org/
>>
>>
> [2] http://isis.apache.org/guides/rg.html#_rg_runtime_configuring-core
> [3]
> http://isis.apache.org/migration-notes.html#_release-notes_migration-notes_1.8.0-to-1.9.0
Óscar Bou Bou
Responsable de Producto
Auditor Jefe de Certificación ISO 27001 en BSI
CISA, CRISC, APMG ISO 20000, ITIL-F
902 900 231 / 620 267 520
http://www.twitter.com/oscarbou <http://www.twitter.com/oscarbou>
http://es.linkedin.com/in/oscarbou <http://es.linkedin.com/in/oscarbou>
http://www.GesConsultor.com <http://www.gesconsultor.com/>
Este mensaje y los ficheros anexos son confidenciales. Los mismos contienen información reservada que no puede ser difundida. Si usted ha recibido este correo por error, tenga la amabilidad de eliminarlo de su sistema y avisar al remitente mediante reenvío a su dirección electrónica; no deberá copiar el mensaje ni divulgar su contenido a ninguna persona.
Su dirección de correo electrónico junto a sus datos personales constan en un fichero titularidad de Gesdatos Software, S.L. cuya finalidad es la de mantener el contacto con Ud. Si quiere saber de qué información disponemos de Ud., modificarla, y en su caso, cancelarla, puede hacerlo enviando un escrito al efecto, acompañado de una fotocopia de su D.N.I. a la siguiente dirección: Gesdatos Software, S.L. , Paseo de la Castellana, 153 bajo - 28046 (Madrid), y Avda. Cortes Valencianas num. 50, 1ºC - 46015 (Valencia). Asimismo, es su responsabilidad comprobar que este mensaje o sus archivos adjuntos no contengan virus informáticos, y en caso que los tuvieran eliminarlos.
Re: Ready for a 1.9.0 release?
Posted by GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou <o....@gesconsultor.com>.
Hi Dan.
Seems perfect to me to have a monthly release schedule
Regarding releasing 1.9.0 now we’re currently with a 1.9.0 SNAPSHOT but this week will be difficult to migrate and test our platform to verify all tests still pass after the AppSpecs changes.
If you consider those tests are needed, next week would be better for us, when dev team return from holidays, but perhaps that’s not needed.
Regards,
Oscar
> El 16/8/2015, a las 9:50, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk> escribió:
>
> On 16 August 2015 at 08:16, Kevin Meyer <ke...@kmz.co.za> wrote:
>
>>
>> Question: Given the changes, shouldn't we release a major release (2.0.0)
>> [1]? The API certainly has changed since 1.7 (I call annotations part of
>> the API).
>>
>>
> As you say, we aim to follow semantic versioning. But although we've
> deprecated those old annotations they are still supported; which means that
> we stay on 1.x codeline. (I'm looking forward to moving up to 2.0 at some
> point in the future so I can delete a bunch of deprecated stuff, but I
> don't think it's been deprecated for long enough... the old annotations
> were deprecated less than a year ago)
>
> While on this topic, worth saying that setting the
> "isis.reflector.validator.allowDeprecated" configuration property to false
> is a useful migration step as it will flag all uses of the deprecated
> annotations. [2]
>
>
>
>
>
>> Re: your proposal for regular releases after this should be ok to push
>> enhancements out into non-snapshot release, my only concern is that
>> regularly releases should be OK as long as user devs developing with our
>> platform don't have to change any existing code.
>>
>>
> Absolutely, the intention is that it we would maintain backward
> compatibility of the programming model (annotations etc).
>
> As can be seen through the various 1.x releases, we have changed/improved
> the bootstrapping and organization of code, and that might continue. eg
> the move to DN 4.x changes some of the pom.xml entries, and the new
> appManifest stuff recommends introducing a new "myapp-app" module. See
> migration notes [3]
>
>
>
>
>> It's OK if it's a bugfix/feature/enhancement that adds new functionality,
>> when user devs just add more code to access it - but I would be concerned
>> about monthly releases that require changes to code in production....
>>
>>
> Agreed; that's not the intention.
>
>
>
>> I'm interested in other opinions..
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Kevin
>>
>> PS: The new asciidoc website looks really good!
>>
>>
> Cheers... it took some work, and still work in progress, but I'm pleased
> with how it's turned out and also how easy it is to update.
>
>
>
>
>> [1] http://semver.org/
>>
>>
> [2] http://isis.apache.org/guides/rg.html#_rg_runtime_configuring-core
> [3]
> http://isis.apache.org/migration-notes.html#_release-notes_migration-notes_1.8.0-to-1.9.0
Óscar Bou Bou
Responsable de Producto
Auditor Jefe de Certificación ISO 27001 en BSI
CISA, CRISC, APMG ISO 20000, ITIL-F
902 900 231 / 620 267 520
http://www.twitter.com/oscarbou <http://www.twitter.com/oscarbou>
http://es.linkedin.com/in/oscarbou <http://es.linkedin.com/in/oscarbou>
http://www.GesConsultor.com <http://www.gesconsultor.com/>
Este mensaje y los ficheros anexos son confidenciales. Los mismos contienen información reservada que no puede ser difundida. Si usted ha recibido este correo por error, tenga la amabilidad de eliminarlo de su sistema y avisar al remitente mediante reenvío a su dirección electrónica; no deberá copiar el mensaje ni divulgar su contenido a ninguna persona.
Su dirección de correo electrónico junto a sus datos personales constan en un fichero titularidad de Gesdatos Software, S.L. cuya finalidad es la de mantener el contacto con Ud. Si quiere saber de qué información disponemos de Ud., modificarla, y en su caso, cancelarla, puede hacerlo enviando un escrito al efecto, acompañado de una fotocopia de su D.N.I. a la siguiente dirección: Gesdatos Software, S.L. , Paseo de la Castellana, 153 bajo - 28046 (Madrid), y Avda. Cortes Valencianas num. 50, 1ºC - 46015 (Valencia). Asimismo, es su responsabilidad comprobar que este mensaje o sus archivos adjuntos no contengan virus informáticos, y en caso que los tuvieran eliminarlos.
Re: Ready for a 1.9.0 release?
Posted by Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>.
On 16 August 2015 at 08:16, Kevin Meyer <ke...@kmz.co.za> wrote:
>
> Question: Given the changes, shouldn't we release a major release (2.0.0)
> [1]? The API certainly has changed since 1.7 (I call annotations part of
> the API).
>
>
As you say, we aim to follow semantic versioning. But although we've
deprecated those old annotations they are still supported; which means that
we stay on 1.x codeline. (I'm looking forward to moving up to 2.0 at some
point in the future so I can delete a bunch of deprecated stuff, but I
don't think it's been deprecated for long enough... the old annotations
were deprecated less than a year ago)
While on this topic, worth saying that setting the
"isis.reflector.validator.allowDeprecated" configuration property to false
is a useful migration step as it will flag all uses of the deprecated
annotations. [2]
> Re: your proposal for regular releases after this should be ok to push
> enhancements out into non-snapshot release, my only concern is that
> regularly releases should be OK as long as user devs developing with our
> platform don't have to change any existing code.
>
>
Absolutely, the intention is that it we would maintain backward
compatibility of the programming model (annotations etc).
As can be seen through the various 1.x releases, we have changed/improved
the bootstrapping and organization of code, and that might continue. eg
the move to DN 4.x changes some of the pom.xml entries, and the new
appManifest stuff recommends introducing a new "myapp-app" module. See
migration notes [3]
> It's OK if it's a bugfix/feature/enhancement that adds new functionality,
> when user devs just add more code to access it - but I would be concerned
> about monthly releases that require changes to code in production....
>
>
Agreed; that's not the intention.
> I'm interested in other opinions..
>
> Cheers!
> Kevin
>
> PS: The new asciidoc website looks really good!
>
>
Cheers... it took some work, and still work in progress, but I'm pleased
with how it's turned out and also how easy it is to update.
> [1] http://semver.org/
>
>
[2] http://isis.apache.org/guides/rg.html#_rg_runtime_configuring-core
[3]
http://isis.apache.org/migration-notes.html#_release-notes_migration-notes_1.8.0-to-1.9.0
Re: Ready for a 1.9.0 release?
Posted by Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>.
On 16 August 2015 at 08:16, Kevin Meyer <ke...@kmz.co.za> wrote:
>
> Question: Given the changes, shouldn't we release a major release (2.0.0)
> [1]? The API certainly has changed since 1.7 (I call annotations part of
> the API).
>
>
As you say, we aim to follow semantic versioning. But although we've
deprecated those old annotations they are still supported; which means that
we stay on 1.x codeline. (I'm looking forward to moving up to 2.0 at some
point in the future so I can delete a bunch of deprecated stuff, but I
don't think it's been deprecated for long enough... the old annotations
were deprecated less than a year ago)
While on this topic, worth saying that setting the
"isis.reflector.validator.allowDeprecated" configuration property to false
is a useful migration step as it will flag all uses of the deprecated
annotations. [2]
> Re: your proposal for regular releases after this should be ok to push
> enhancements out into non-snapshot release, my only concern is that
> regularly releases should be OK as long as user devs developing with our
> platform don't have to change any existing code.
>
>
Absolutely, the intention is that it we would maintain backward
compatibility of the programming model (annotations etc).
As can be seen through the various 1.x releases, we have changed/improved
the bootstrapping and organization of code, and that might continue. eg
the move to DN 4.x changes some of the pom.xml entries, and the new
appManifest stuff recommends introducing a new "myapp-app" module. See
migration notes [3]
> It's OK if it's a bugfix/feature/enhancement that adds new functionality,
> when user devs just add more code to access it - but I would be concerned
> about monthly releases that require changes to code in production....
>
>
Agreed; that's not the intention.
> I'm interested in other opinions..
>
> Cheers!
> Kevin
>
> PS: The new asciidoc website looks really good!
>
>
Cheers... it took some work, and still work in progress, but I'm pleased
with how it's turned out and also how easy it is to update.
> [1] http://semver.org/
>
>
[2] http://isis.apache.org/guides/rg.html#_rg_runtime_configuring-core
[3]
http://isis.apache.org/migration-notes.html#_release-notes_migration-notes_1.8.0-to-1.9.0
Re: Ready for a 1.9.0 release?
Posted by Kevin Meyer <ke...@kmz.co.za>.
Hi Dan,
Excellent news - I'm planning on giving a presentation at work on the
latest Apache Isis, but I'm waiting until after the next release.
Question: Given the changes, shouldn't we release a major release (2.0.0)
[1]? The API certainly has changed since 1.7 (I call annotations part of
the API).
Re: your proposal for regular releases after this should be ok to push
enhancements out into non-snapshot release, my only concern is that
regularly releases should be OK as long as user devs developing with our
platform don't have to change any existing code.
It's OK if it's a bugfix/feature/enhancement that adds new functionality,
when user devs just add more code to access it - but I would be concerned
about monthly releases that require changes to code in production....
I'm interested in other opinions..
Cheers!
Kevin
PS: The new asciidoc website looks really good!
[1] http://semver.org/
On Sat, August 15, 2015 12:21, Dan Haywood wrote:
> Hi folks (send this to dev ML, cc'ing the users ML)
>
>
> Just to say that we're well overdue for a release - and I've well aware
> that Ive semi-promised to cut a release for several of the last months and
> then not done so.
>
> So this is to say that I'm intending to cut a release next weekend (ie
> 22/23rd Aug), unless anyone in this coming week finds a show-stopper.
>
>
> I'd appreciate it if you could to upgrade to the latest snapshot (which
> includes moving up to the latest-n-greatest DN 4.1), and also (optionally)
> to port your app to using the new AppManifest stuff (should simplify
> bootstrapping and long term maintainability). The migration notes [1]
> should help
>
> ~~~
> And, after 1.9.0 is released, what do people think about moving to a more
> regular schedule, eg once every month? I know that Apache Wicket and
> Apache Deltaspike are able to maintain this sort of schedule; our release
> procedures are now reasonably well documented/automated [2] so I think
> it'd be good to follow this practice. Thoughts?
>
> Thanks all
> Dan
>
>
> [1]
> http://isis.apache.org/migration-notes.html#_release-notes_migration-notes
> _1.8.0-to-1.9.0
> [2] http://isis.apache.org/guides/cg.html#_cg_committers_cutting-a-release
>
>
--
Kevin Meyer
Ljubljana, Slovenia
Re: Ready for a 1.9.0 release?
Posted by Kevin Meyer <ke...@kmz.co.za>.
Hi Dan,
Excellent news - I'm planning on giving a presentation at work on the
latest Apache Isis, but I'm waiting until after the next release.
Question: Given the changes, shouldn't we release a major release (2.0.0)
[1]? The API certainly has changed since 1.7 (I call annotations part of
the API).
Re: your proposal for regular releases after this should be ok to push
enhancements out into non-snapshot release, my only concern is that
regularly releases should be OK as long as user devs developing with our
platform don't have to change any existing code.
It's OK if it's a bugfix/feature/enhancement that adds new functionality,
when user devs just add more code to access it - but I would be concerned
about monthly releases that require changes to code in production....
I'm interested in other opinions..
Cheers!
Kevin
PS: The new asciidoc website looks really good!
[1] http://semver.org/
On Sat, August 15, 2015 12:21, Dan Haywood wrote:
> Hi folks (send this to dev ML, cc'ing the users ML)
>
>
> Just to say that we're well overdue for a release - and I've well aware
> that Ive semi-promised to cut a release for several of the last months and
> then not done so.
>
> So this is to say that I'm intending to cut a release next weekend (ie
> 22/23rd Aug), unless anyone in this coming week finds a show-stopper.
>
>
> I'd appreciate it if you could to upgrade to the latest snapshot (which
> includes moving up to the latest-n-greatest DN 4.1), and also (optionally)
> to port your app to using the new AppManifest stuff (should simplify
> bootstrapping and long term maintainability). The migration notes [1]
> should help
>
> ~~~
> And, after 1.9.0 is released, what do people think about moving to a more
> regular schedule, eg once every month? I know that Apache Wicket and
> Apache Deltaspike are able to maintain this sort of schedule; our release
> procedures are now reasonably well documented/automated [2] so I think
> it'd be good to follow this practice. Thoughts?
>
> Thanks all
> Dan
>
>
> [1]
> http://isis.apache.org/migration-notes.html#_release-notes_migration-notes
> _1.8.0-to-1.9.0
> [2] http://isis.apache.org/guides/cg.html#_cg_committers_cutting-a-release
>
>
--
Kevin Meyer
Ljubljana, Slovenia