You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> on 2006/11/07 01:53:58 UTC
Release most 1.4 specs?
What do yo think of releasing the 1.4 specs (v1.2) included with our
server? After a quick inspection of the specs we have in trunk, I
think they break down as follows.
I'd like to get the stuff in the release category out ASAP and maybe
an preview release of the stuff in the wait category.
So what do you think?
-dain
Release:
geronimo-activation_1.0.2_spec/
geronimo-ejb_2.1_spec/
geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.5_spec/
geronimo-j2ee-deployment_1.1_spec/
geronimo-j2ee-jacc_1.0_spec/
geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec/
geronimo-javamail_1.3.1_spec/
geronimo-jaxr_1.0_spec/
geronimo-jaxrpc_1.1_spec/
geronimo-jms_1.1_spec/
geronimo-jsp_2.0_spec/
geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec/
geronimo-qname_1.1_spec/
geronimo-saaj_1.1_spec/
geronimo-servlet_2.4_spec/
Wait:
geronimo-activation_1.1_spec/
geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec/
geronimo-commonj_1.1_spec/
geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
geronimo-interceptor_3.0_spec/
geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec/
geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/
geronimo-jta_1.1_spec/
geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec/
geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec/
Delete:
geronimo-corba_2.3_spec - Replaced with Yoko
geronimo-corba_3.0_spec - Replaced with Yoko
geronimo-spec-corba - Replaced with Yoko
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Nov 6, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> What do yo think of releasing the 1.4 specs (v1.2) included with
> our server? After a quick inspection of the specs we have in
> trunk, I think they break down as follows.
>
> I'd like to get the stuff in the release category out ASAP
excellent
> and maybe an preview release of the stuff in the wait category.
good idea, are you thinking like 1.2-rc1?
thanks
david jencks
>
> So what do you think?
>
> -dain
>
>
>
> Release:
> geronimo-activation_1.0.2_spec/
> geronimo-ejb_2.1_spec/
> geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.5_spec/
> geronimo-j2ee-deployment_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-j2ee-jacc_1.0_spec/
> geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec/
> geronimo-javamail_1.3.1_spec/
> geronimo-jaxr_1.0_spec/
> geronimo-jaxrpc_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-jms_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-jsp_2.0_spec/
> geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec/
> geronimo-qname_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-saaj_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-servlet_2.4_spec/
>
> Wait:
> geronimo-activation_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec/
> geronimo-commonj_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
> geronimo-interceptor_3.0_spec/
> geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec/
> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/
> geronimo-jta_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec/
> geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec/
>
> Delete:
> geronimo-corba_2.3_spec - Replaced with Yoko
> geronimo-corba_3.0_spec - Replaced with Yoko
> geronimo-spec-corba - Replaced with Yoko
>
>
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
FYI... I'm +1 on doing this.
--jason
On Nov 6, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Oops, sorry about the typo :)
>
> -dain
>
> On Nov 6, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> FYI, the version of these specs will not all be released as 1.2,
>> some are 1.1 (as they are 1.1-SNAPSHOT now)... in fact most would
>> be released as 1.1.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> What do yo think of releasing the 1.4 specs (v1.2) included with
>>> our server? After a quick inspection of the specs we have in
>>> trunk, I think they break down as follows.
>>>
>>> I'd like to get the stuff in the release category out ASAP and
>>> maybe an preview release of the stuff in the wait category.
>>>
>>> So what do you think?
>>>
>>> -dain
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Release:
>>> geronimo-activation_1.0.2_spec/
>>> geronimo-ejb_2.1_spec/
>>> geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.5_spec/
>>> geronimo-j2ee-deployment_1.1_spec/
>>> geronimo-j2ee-jacc_1.0_spec/
>>> geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec/
>>> geronimo-javamail_1.3.1_spec/
>>> geronimo-jaxr_1.0_spec/
>>> geronimo-jaxrpc_1.1_spec/
>>> geronimo-jms_1.1_spec/
>>> geronimo-jsp_2.0_spec/
>>> geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec/
>>> geronimo-qname_1.1_spec/
>>> geronimo-saaj_1.1_spec/
>>> geronimo-servlet_2.4_spec/
>>>
>>> Wait:
>>> geronimo-activation_1.1_spec/
>>> geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec/
>>> geronimo-commonj_1.1_spec/
>>> geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
>>> geronimo-interceptor_3.0_spec/
>>> geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec/
>>> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/
>>> geronimo-jta_1.1_spec/
>>> geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec/
>>> geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec/
>>>
>>> Delete:
>>> geronimo-corba_2.3_spec - Replaced with Yoko
>>> geronimo-corba_3.0_spec - Replaced with Yoko
>>> geronimo-spec-corba - Replaced with Yoko
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Oops, sorry about the typo :)
-dain
On Nov 6, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> FYI, the version of these specs will not all be released as 1.2,
> some are 1.1 (as they are 1.1-SNAPSHOT now)... in fact most would
> be released as 1.1.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> What do yo think of releasing the 1.4 specs (v1.2) included with
>> our server? After a quick inspection of the specs we have in
>> trunk, I think they break down as follows.
>>
>> I'd like to get the stuff in the release category out ASAP and
>> maybe an preview release of the stuff in the wait category.
>>
>> So what do you think?
>>
>> -dain
>>
>>
>>
>> Release:
>> geronimo-activation_1.0.2_spec/
>> geronimo-ejb_2.1_spec/
>> geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.5_spec/
>> geronimo-j2ee-deployment_1.1_spec/
>> geronimo-j2ee-jacc_1.0_spec/
>> geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec/
>> geronimo-javamail_1.3.1_spec/
>> geronimo-jaxr_1.0_spec/
>> geronimo-jaxrpc_1.1_spec/
>> geronimo-jms_1.1_spec/
>> geronimo-jsp_2.0_spec/
>> geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec/
>> geronimo-qname_1.1_spec/
>> geronimo-saaj_1.1_spec/
>> geronimo-servlet_2.4_spec/
>>
>> Wait:
>> geronimo-activation_1.1_spec/
>> geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec/
>> geronimo-commonj_1.1_spec/
>> geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
>> geronimo-interceptor_3.0_spec/
>> geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec/
>> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/
>> geronimo-jta_1.1_spec/
>> geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec/
>> geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec/
>>
>> Delete:
>> geronimo-corba_2.3_spec - Replaced with Yoko
>> geronimo-corba_3.0_spec - Replaced with Yoko
>> geronimo-spec-corba - Replaced with Yoko
>>
>>
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
FYI, the version of these specs will not all be released as 1.2, some
are 1.1 (as they are 1.1-SNAPSHOT now)... in fact most would be
released as 1.1.
--jason
On Nov 6, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> What do yo think of releasing the 1.4 specs (v1.2) included with
> our server? After a quick inspection of the specs we have in
> trunk, I think they break down as follows.
>
> I'd like to get the stuff in the release category out ASAP and
> maybe an preview release of the stuff in the wait category.
>
> So what do you think?
>
> -dain
>
>
>
> Release:
> geronimo-activation_1.0.2_spec/
> geronimo-ejb_2.1_spec/
> geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.5_spec/
> geronimo-j2ee-deployment_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-j2ee-jacc_1.0_spec/
> geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec/
> geronimo-javamail_1.3.1_spec/
> geronimo-jaxr_1.0_spec/
> geronimo-jaxrpc_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-jms_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-jsp_2.0_spec/
> geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec/
> geronimo-qname_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-saaj_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-servlet_2.4_spec/
>
> Wait:
> geronimo-activation_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec/
> geronimo-commonj_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
> geronimo-interceptor_3.0_spec/
> geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec/
> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/
> geronimo-jta_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec/
> geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec/
>
> Delete:
> geronimo-corba_2.3_spec - Replaced with Yoko
> geronimo-corba_3.0_spec - Replaced with Yoko
> geronimo-spec-corba - Replaced with Yoko
>
>
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Nov 7, 2006, at 9:12 AM, David Blevins wrote:
> Before we release them can we mark the deps of these specs with
> "<scope>provided</scope>"? Especially anything that's also in JEE
> 5 that requires JTA and anything that requires QName.
I think its fine for the JavaEE5 specs, but not sure how builds might
react to the change for others... but I have not really tried to see
how G behaves.
> Also, some people are using them outside of Geronimo and have been
> having 1.3 compatibility issues with our specs (like OpenJPA). For
> those that can compile with 1.3 can we mark them in the pom to
> compile that way?
Sounds like a good idea.
--jason
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
Before we release them can we mark the deps of these specs with
"<scope>provided</scope>"? Especially anything that's also in JEE 5
that requires JTA and anything that requires QName.
Also, some people are using them outside of Geronimo and have been
having 1.3 compatibility issues with our specs (like OpenJPA). For
those that can compile with 1.3 can we mark them in the pom to
compile that way?
-David
On Nov 6, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Release:
> geronimo-activation_1.0.2_spec/
> geronimo-ejb_2.1_spec/
> geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.5_spec/
> geronimo-j2ee-deployment_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-j2ee-jacc_1.0_spec/
> geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec/
> geronimo-javamail_1.3.1_spec/
> geronimo-jaxr_1.0_spec/
> geronimo-jaxrpc_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-jms_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-jsp_2.0_spec/
> geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec/
> geronimo-qname_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-saaj_1.1_spec/
> geronimo-servlet_2.4_spec/
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 7, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> We seem to have a process problem from what I can tell. I seem to
> recall a few votes and no activity on this subject (perhaps someone
> can help to correct my flawed view of the world).
>
> Can the vote initiators summarize the previous votes and proposed
> actions? I'm not sure why this is still being discussed but I
> would feel a whole lot better if we had a vote consensus. What was
> the last vote proposed and what was the action and majority outcome?
IMO, Jason's following note pretty well recorded the point we'd
reached last month:
On Oct 24, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Folks... this vote has been lingering for way to long... some of the
> in-flight debate/discussion kinda threw us off track.
>
> I believe that we should implement the solution we have described here
> for now and if needed continue discussion and debate about how to
> handle this better... BUT, I think we must do something now and I
> think that this is good enough.
>
> Here is a tally of the votes cast so far:
>
> <snip>
> +1: jdillon, dblevins, dain, bsnyder, bdudney, gnodet, pmcmahan,
> jbohn, rmcguire, hogstrom
> +0: jacek
>
> And after some debate:
> +1: kevan, alan
> </snip>
>
> While I, djencks, kevan and a few others have expressed some desire
> for one version for all specs, and many other have expressed
> objection... I do believe that we need to do something to get specs
> into a publishable state NOW.
>
> So, unless anyone screams loudly, I am going to implement the changes
> described below as an intermediate solution. Once this is done (and
> once people comes back to life) we can publish a new set of SNAPSHOT
> artifacts and remove the need for the specs build in bootstrap...
> which is one step closer to not needing bootstrap.
>
> This may not be the final solution... but its one step closer... and
> since we have not moved at all on this for quite some time I think any
> movement is better than none at all.
--kevan
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
We seem to have a process problem from what I can tell. I seem to
recall a few votes and no activity on this subject (perhaps someone
can help to correct my flawed view of the world).
Can the vote initiators summarize the previous votes and proposed
actions? I'm not sure why this is still being discussed but I would
feel a whole lot better if we had a vote consensus. What was the
last vote proposed and what was the action and majority outcome?
Matt Hogstrom
matt@hogstrom.org
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 7, 2006, at 12:24 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> Upon closer inspection we never closed this issue. Sorry.
No problem. We've created a twisted path... Easy to see how we've
confused ourselves. Even odds that I was wrong... ;-)
--kevan
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Nov 7, 2006, at 8:28 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> On Nov 6, 2006, at 7:53 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> What do yo think of releasing the 1.4 specs (v1.2) included with
>>> our server? After a quick inspection of the specs we have in
>>> trunk, I think they break down as follows.
>>>
>>> I'd like to get the stuff in the release category out ASAP and
>>> maybe an preview release of the stuff in the wait category.
>>>
>>> So what do you think?
>>
>> Now that the specs are reorganized, isn't this the time to have
>> the specs versioning discussion?
>>
>> IMO, a single version of specs will be easier for us and users of
>> our specs. I'll note that this thread already documents an error/
>> typo in describing the versions of specs to be released.
>>
>> We've been around the block several times on this issue. Let's get
>> any discussions finalized and put the issue to a vote. Agreed?
>> I'll get the discussion started...
>
> Are you kidding me? You want to open this up for discussion again
> just as we were going to finally make some progress and hopefully
> put this to bed. The reorganization we just did was to have one
> version number per spec.
Upon closer inspection we never closed this issue. Sorry.
-dain
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 7, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> I think we need to release the reorganized/repom'd specs... that
> was the general plan after cleaning them up was to make a release
> so we have a set of consistent non-SNAPSHOT specs to work off of.
>
> After this re-release, we can debate one version, or whatever. I'd
> still like to see one version win out, but I have yet to come up
> with the smoking gun argument to convince everyone that I'm not on
> crack.
>
> BUT... for now, we gotta move forward with something. Its easy
> enough to change later if we want.
I don't really understand why we can't resolve the versioning issue
then release. I assume it's a timing issue. What is the current
SNAPSHOT status of specs gating? I think we can certainly release
before G 1.2 is ready to go...
IMO, neither solution is going to be perfect. No matter what decision
we reach, somebody will be able to say "I told you so". I'd prefer we
go one way or the other and not look back...
--kevan
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I think we need to release the reorganized/repom'd specs... that was
the general plan after cleaning them up was to make a release so we
have a set of consistent non-SNAPSHOT specs to work off of.
After this re-release, we can debate one version, or whatever. I'd
still like to see one version win out, but I have yet to come up with
the smoking gun argument to convince everyone that I'm not on crack.
BUT... for now, we gotta move forward with something. Its easy
enough to change later if we want.
--jason
On Nov 7, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Nov 7, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you kidding me? You want to open this up for discussion again
>> just as we were going to finally make some progress and hopefully
>> put this to bed. The reorganization we just did was to have one
>> version number per spec.
>
> Well, as you have probably guessed, I'm not. You aren't putting
> this to "bed". You're ignoring it. I'd like to put it to bed.
>
> We agreed to reorg specs. We did not decide whether or not to
> release specs in independent or interlocked version numbers. Isn't
> that what we discussed on dev@?
>
>>
>> As you can see, I am totally against changing what we have right
>> now, one version per spec.
>
> Fine. And I'm against releasing a bunch of specs, for which we've
> gotten the version numbers wrong for twice in this discussion
> thread. If we can't keep them straight, now, seems like we're
> destined for confusion in the future.
>
> So, you and I cancel each other out. Why don't we let the community
> decide and move on? I'm happy to abide by our decision...
>
> P.S. I'd assumed that we'd be passing TCK before releasing the
> specs (at least that's how we've operated in the past). There's
> some risk (probably pretty small) that we'll uncover a problem with
> specs with our testing. Are you planning on releasing prior to tck
> passing or afterward?
>
> --kevan
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 7, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> Are you kidding me? You want to open this up for discussion again
> just as we were going to finally make some progress and hopefully
> put this to bed. The reorganization we just did was to have one
> version number per spec.
Well, as you have probably guessed, I'm not. You aren't putting this
to "bed". You're ignoring it. I'd like to put it to bed.
We agreed to reorg specs. We did not decide whether or not to release
specs in independent or interlocked version numbers. Isn't that what
we discussed on dev@?
>
> As you can see, I am totally against changing what we have right
> now, one version per spec.
Fine. And I'm against releasing a bunch of specs, for which we've
gotten the version numbers wrong for twice in this discussion thread.
If we can't keep them straight, now, seems like we're destined for
confusion in the future.
So, you and I cancel each other out. Why don't we let the community
decide and move on? I'm happy to abide by our decision...
P.S. I'd assumed that we'd be passing TCK before releasing the specs
(at least that's how we've operated in the past). There's some risk
(probably pretty small) that we'll uncover a problem with specs with
our testing. Are you planning on releasing prior to tck passing or
afterward?
--kevan
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Nov 7, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2006, at 7:53 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> What do yo think of releasing the 1.4 specs (v1.2) included with
>> our server? After a quick inspection of the specs we have in
>> trunk, I think they break down as follows.
>>
>> I'd like to get the stuff in the release category out ASAP and
>> maybe an preview release of the stuff in the wait category.
>>
>> So what do you think?
>
> Now that the specs are reorganized, isn't this the time to have the
> specs versioning discussion?
>
> IMO, a single version of specs will be easier for us and users of
> our specs. I'll note that this thread already documents an error/
> typo in describing the versions of specs to be released.
>
> We've been around the block several times on this issue. Let's get
> any discussions finalized and put the issue to a vote. Agreed? I'll
> get the discussion started...
Are you kidding me? You want to open this up for discussion again
just as we were going to finally make some progress and hopefully put
this to bed. The reorganization we just did was to have one version
number per spec.
As you can see, I am totally against changing what we have right now,
one version per spec.
-dain
Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 6, 2006, at 7:53 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> What do yo think of releasing the 1.4 specs (v1.2) included with
> our server? After a quick inspection of the specs we have in
> trunk, I think they break down as follows.
>
> I'd like to get the stuff in the release category out ASAP and
> maybe an preview release of the stuff in the wait category.
>
> So what do you think?
Now that the specs are reorganized, isn't this the time to have the
specs versioning discussion?
IMO, a single version of specs will be easier for us and users of our
specs. I'll note that this thread already documents an error/typo in
describing the versions of specs to be released.
We've been around the block several times on this issue. Let's get
any discussions finalized and put the issue to a vote. Agreed? I'll
get the discussion started...
--kevan