You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> on 2006/07/18 05:30:27 UTC
Moving chianti to trunk
With the vote in favour of switching, I am about to start moving
chianti into trunk. I will move the current sca parts into a branch
(branches/pre-chianti) and move the chianti code into trunk. I will
make the version in the poms 1.0-SNAPSHOT like the SDO tree.
I expect to complete this tomorrow or possibly Wed if there are build
issues. If anyone has a bunch of uncommitted changes or a big patch
for submission please speak up soon to avoid merge issues.
Thanks
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
On Jul 19, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
> Comments inline below.
>
> Simon
>
> Jim Marino wrote:
>
>> On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:07 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
>>> I wasn't asking for an "official" policy statement on this, and
>>> I wasn't suggesting that we stop all innovation and move into a
>>> phase where we only work on things that were part of M1.
>>>
>>> By releasing M1, we moved from a phase of focusing purely on
>>> the developer community into a phase of starting to attract
>>> potential users as well. I think we need to strike a balance
>>> between the needs of developers and users. We met some
>>> potential users at ApacheCon, and I expect that we will meet
>>> more at OSCON. For now we can point them to M1, but given
>>> our desire to focus around a single codebase that is actively
>>> being enhanced, I would expect that we would want to be able to
>>> start to point these people to the new codebase in the fairly
>>> near future.
>> And we should. In fact, I would point them at the "new" code now,
>> not just in the future. That is the codebase chosen by the
>> community. That is our code.
> Seems like we are in agreement about this. The short-term
> difficulty we have right now is that some things that used to
> work in the M1 code don't currently work in chianti. This would
> be an issue for users who want to build applications using Tuscany.
>
>> If you believe the decision to adopt chianti as our code to be in
>> error, you are free to ask the community to reconsider, although
>> I believe the vote last week accurately expressed the community
>> will (as willful an act as it may have been ;-) ).
> I voted in favour of this adoption and I would much prefer us to
> continue to move forward and not move backwards.
>
>> Of course, people can also resort to M1 if they prefer to
>> experiment with the .9 version of the SCA specification or
>> features specific to that milestone.
> This is not what I had in mind. Right now they would need to revert
> to M1 if they wanted to work with Web service bindings or Tomcat
> integration. I think it is undesirable that these features are
> currently coupled to the use of the 0.9 spec version.
>
>>>
>>> Even from a developer community standpoint, I think there is
>>> considerable value in maintaining a working base level of
>>> functionality that can support end-to-end scenarios. This
>>> allows developers creating new code to exercise that code in
>>> the context of real-world usage, in addition to unit tests.
>>>
>> I would imagine there is unanimous agreement on this point as we
>> are working hard to add "real-world" functionality that interests
>> members of the community.
> Excellent.
>
>> Based on your statements, it sounds as if there is functionality
>> you would like to see added. The somewhat, although not
>> completely, flippant response to this is: Thanks for volunteering!
>> If you would like to see a particular set of functionality in
>> Tuscany you can either request it (preferably in JIRA) or develop
>> it and submit a patch. Depending on the importance of the feature
>> to the community, I suspect the latter approach has a higher
>> probability of success in the short-term. It is also the option I
>> would personally prefer as it expands the active, contributing
>> segment of the community.
> Sounds good. I'll probably start with JIRAs and then get deeper into
> the codebase so that I can start developing and submitting patches.
>
Great. Let me know how I can help with any questions.
Jim
> Simon
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
Comments inline below.
Simon
Jim Marino wrote:
>
> On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:07 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
>
>> I wasn't asking for an "official" policy statement on this, and
>> I wasn't suggesting that we stop all innovation and move into a
>> phase where we only work on things that were part of M1.
>>
>> By releasing M1, we moved from a phase of focusing purely on
>> the developer community into a phase of starting to attract
>> potential users as well. I think we need to strike a balance
>> between the needs of developers and users. We met some
>> potential users at ApacheCon, and I expect that we will meet
>> more at OSCON. For now we can point them to M1, but given
>> our desire to focus around a single codebase that is actively
>> being enhanced, I would expect that we would want to be able to
>> start to point these people to the new codebase in the fairly
>> near future.
>
>
> And we should. In fact, I would point them at the "new" code now, not
> just in the future. That is the codebase chosen by the community. That
> is our code.
>
Seems like we are in agreement about this. The short-term
difficulty we have right now is that some things that used to
work in the M1 code don't currently work in chianti. This would
be an issue for users who want to build applications using Tuscany.
> If you believe the decision to adopt chianti as our code to be in
> error, you are free to ask the community to reconsider, although I
> believe the vote last week accurately expressed the community will (as
> willful an act as it may have been ;-) ).
>
I voted in favour of this adoption and I would much prefer us to
continue to move forward and not move backwards.
> Of course, people can also resort to M1 if they prefer to experiment
> with the .9 version of the SCA specification or features specific to
> that milestone.
>
This is not what I had in mind. Right now they would need to revert
to M1 if they wanted to work with Web service bindings or Tomcat
integration. I think it is undesirable that these features are
currently coupled to the use of the 0.9 spec version.
>>
>> Even from a developer community standpoint, I think there is
>> considerable value in maintaining a working base level of
>> functionality that can support end-to-end scenarios. This
>> allows developers creating new code to exercise that code in
>> the context of real-world usage, in addition to unit tests.
>>
>
> I would imagine there is unanimous agreement on this point as we are
> working hard to add "real-world" functionality that interests members
> of the community.
>
Excellent.
> Based on your statements, it sounds as if there is functionality you
> would like to see added. The somewhat, although not completely,
> flippant response to this is: Thanks for volunteering!
>
> If you would like to see a particular set of functionality in Tuscany
> you can either request it (preferably in JIRA) or develop it and submit
> a patch. Depending on the importance of the feature to the community, I
> suspect the latter approach has a higher probability of success in the
> short-term. It is also the option I would personally prefer as it
> expands the active, contributing segment of the community.
>
Sounds good. I'll probably start with JIRAs and then get deeper into
the codebase so that I can start developing and submitting patches.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
On Jul 19, 2006, at 8:41 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Jim Marino wrote:
>> On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:07 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
>>> I wasn't asking for an "official" policy statement on this, and
>>> I wasn't suggesting that we stop all innovation and move into a
>>> phase where we only work on things that were part of M1.
>>>
>>> By releasing M1, we moved from a phase of focusing purely on
>>> the developer community into a phase of starting to attract
>>> potential users as well. I think we need to strike a balance
>>> between the needs of developers and users. We met some
>>> potential users at ApacheCon, and I expect that we will meet
>>> more at OSCON. For now we can point them to M1, but given
>>> our desire to focus around a single codebase that is actively
>>> being enhanced, I would expect that we would want to be able to
>>> start to point these people to the new codebase in the fairly
>>> near future.
>> And we should. In fact, I would point them at the "new" code now,
>> not just in the future. That is the codebase chosen by the
>> community. That is our code.
>> If you believe the decision to adopt chianti as our code to be in
>> error, you are free to ask the community to reconsider, although I
>> believe the vote last week accurately expressed the community will
>> (as willful an act as it may have been ;-) ).
>> Of course, people can also resort to M1 if they prefer to
>> experiment with the .9 version of the SCA specification or
>> features specific to that milestone.
>
> If history is any guide, the path that has been chosen will result
> in another revolution in a year or so's time, reverting a number of
> architectural decisions that have been made with this revolution.
> However, not *all* will be lost as much of the additions will also
> have been retained. What will have been lost is much time.
>
> The Rules for Revolutionaries was penned in a time when Tomcat 4
> was poised to replace Tomcat 3. Tomcat 5 was the inevitable result.
>
>>> Even from a developer community standpoint, I think there is
>>> considerable value in maintaining a working base level of
>>> functionality that can support end-to-end scenarios. This
>>> allows developers creating new code to exercise that code in
>>> the context of real-world usage, in addition to unit tests.
>> I would imagine there is unanimous agreement on this point as we
>> are working hard to add "real-world" functionality that interests
>> members of the community.
>> Based on your statements, it sounds as if there is functionality
>> you would like to see added. The somewhat, although not
>> completely, flippant response to this is: Thanks for volunteering!
>
> Votes work best when the victors are understanding and gracious.
> This response treads awfully near towards being rather gloating.
Sorry if it sounds gloating but it was not intended that way. First,
I wouldn't characterize the vote or decision as a matter of "victors"
or "winners". More importantly, my point was to reiterate that if
someone feels a particular piece of functionality important, words
backed by contributions go further than words alone.
>
>> If you would like to see a particular set of functionality in
>> Tuscany you can either request it (preferably in JIRA) or develop
>> it and submit a patch. Depending on the importance of the feature
>> to the community, I suspect the latter approach has a higher
>> probability of success in the short-term. It is also the option I
>> would personally prefer as it expands the active, contributing
>> segment of the community.
>
> Votes in the ASF imply a level of commitment. They mean "I will
> stand behind this course of action and make it work", not "Hey! I
> won! Deal with it!".
>
And I think my actions and contributions adding functionality to
chianti have demonstrated this.
> If there are things that used to work in the M1 trunk that aren't
> yet handled completely in Chianti, then I fully expect those that
> participated in this vote to pro-actively and expediently work to
> close those gaps.
That was exactly my point. That's why I've been working on closing
the gap in areas I deem to be the most pressing (which may receive a
different priority by others and they may choose to approach it
differently).
> And with an eye towards giving the benefit of the doubt to the
> codebase it replaces (i.e., no: see, it didn't handle this obscure
> edge case, so the entire function wasn't fully implemented in M1,
> and yes, I've been around the block once or twice).
>
> The alternative is for the people who voted to say that the rules
> for voting weren't fully explained to them, in which case, I will
> simply say "my bad", and we can hold the vote again.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Jim Marino wrote:
>
> On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:07 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
>
>> I wasn't asking for an "official" policy statement on this, and
>> I wasn't suggesting that we stop all innovation and move into a
>> phase where we only work on things that were part of M1.
>>
>> By releasing M1, we moved from a phase of focusing purely on
>> the developer community into a phase of starting to attract
>> potential users as well. I think we need to strike a balance
>> between the needs of developers and users. We met some
>> potential users at ApacheCon, and I expect that we will meet
>> more at OSCON. For now we can point them to M1, but given
>> our desire to focus around a single codebase that is actively
>> being enhanced, I would expect that we would want to be able to
>> start to point these people to the new codebase in the fairly
>> near future.
>
> And we should. In fact, I would point them at the "new" code now, not
> just in the future. That is the codebase chosen by the community. That
> is our code.
>
> If you believe the decision to adopt chianti as our code to be in error,
> you are free to ask the community to reconsider, although I believe the
> vote last week accurately expressed the community will (as willful an
> act as it may have been ;-) ).
>
> Of course, people can also resort to M1 if they prefer to experiment
> with the .9 version of the SCA specification or features specific to
> that milestone.
If history is any guide, the path that has been chosen will result in
another revolution in a year or so's time, reverting a number of
architectural decisions that have been made with this revolution.
However, not *all* will be lost as much of the additions will also have
been retained. What will have been lost is much time.
The Rules for Revolutionaries was penned in a time when Tomcat 4 was
poised to replace Tomcat 3. Tomcat 5 was the inevitable result.
>> Even from a developer community standpoint, I think there is
>> considerable value in maintaining a working base level of
>> functionality that can support end-to-end scenarios. This
>> allows developers creating new code to exercise that code in
>> the context of real-world usage, in addition to unit tests.
>
> I would imagine there is unanimous agreement on this point as we are
> working hard to add "real-world" functionality that interests members of
> the community.
>
> Based on your statements, it sounds as if there is functionality you
> would like to see added. The somewhat, although not completely, flippant
> response to this is: Thanks for volunteering!
Votes work best when the victors are understanding and gracious. This
response treads awfully near towards being rather gloating.
> If you would like to see a particular set of functionality in Tuscany
> you can either request it (preferably in JIRA) or develop it and submit
> a patch. Depending on the importance of the feature to the community, I
> suspect the latter approach has a higher probability of success in the
> short-term. It is also the option I would personally prefer as it
> expands the active, contributing segment of the community.
Votes in the ASF imply a level of commitment. They mean "I will stand
behind this course of action and make it work", not "Hey! I won! Deal
with it!".
If there are things that used to work in the M1 trunk that aren't yet
handled completely in Chianti, then I fully expect those that
participated in this vote to pro-actively and expediently work to close
those gaps. And with an eye towards giving the benefit of the doubt to
the codebase it replaces (i.e., no: see, it didn't handle this obscure
edge case, so the entire function wasn't fully implemented in M1, and
yes, I've been around the block once or twice).
The alternative is for the people who voted to say that the rules for
voting weren't fully explained to them, in which case, I will simply say
"my bad", and we can hold the vote again.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:07 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
> I wasn't asking for an "official" policy statement on this, and
> I wasn't suggesting that we stop all innovation and move into a
> phase where we only work on things that were part of M1.
>
> By releasing M1, we moved from a phase of focusing purely on
> the developer community into a phase of starting to attract
> potential users as well. I think we need to strike a balance
> between the needs of developers and users. We met some
> potential users at ApacheCon, and I expect that we will meet
> more at OSCON. For now we can point them to M1, but given
> our desire to focus around a single codebase that is actively
> being enhanced, I would expect that we would want to be able to
> start to point these people to the new codebase in the fairly
> near future.
And we should. In fact, I would point them at the "new" code now, not
just in the future. That is the codebase chosen by the community.
That is our code.
If you believe the decision to adopt chianti as our code to be in
error, you are free to ask the community to reconsider, although I
believe the vote last week accurately expressed the community will
(as willful an act as it may have been ;-) ).
Of course, people can also resort to M1 if they prefer to experiment
with the .9 version of the SCA specification or features specific to
that milestone.
>
> Even from a developer community standpoint, I think there is
> considerable value in maintaining a working base level of
> functionality that can support end-to-end scenarios. This
> allows developers creating new code to exercise that code in
> the context of real-world usage, in addition to unit tests.
>
I would imagine there is unanimous agreement on this point as we are
working hard to add "real-world" functionality that interests members
of the community.
Based on your statements, it sounds as if there is functionality you
would like to see added. The somewhat, although not completely,
flippant response to this is: Thanks for volunteering!
If you would like to see a particular set of functionality in Tuscany
you can either request it (preferably in JIRA) or develop it and
submit a patch. Depending on the importance of the feature to the
community, I suspect the latter approach has a higher probability of
success in the short-term. It is also the option I would personally
prefer as it expands the active, contributing segment of the community.
Jim
> Simon
>
> Kenneth Tam wrote:
>
>> -0 on ordaining some kind of "official" priority for functional
>> equivalency with M1 -- my opinion is that at this stage in the
>> project
>> (ie, incubation), developer community is significantly more important
>> than user community. I'd rather we take a more free form stance with
>> respect to encouraging development in areas people find compelling
>> (including of course, the porting of functionality from M1).
>> On 7/18/06, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> It is true that users who just want a working binary download
>>> have the M1 release to work with. However, the Tuscany community
>>> itself will benefit from being able to run end to end scenarios
>>> to exercise code that they contribute to the new trunk. So if we
>>> do make this switch now, I believe that we need to focus as a
>>> community on getting the new trunk into a state where it can run
>>> end to end scenarios with comparable functionality to what we had
>>> previously in M1. I'd feel more comfortable if I saw comments on
>>> this list agreeing that this should be the priority immediately
>>> following the switch.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>
>>> > For me the vote said it all; its good to go to switch. I think
>>> I can
>>> > understand your position and probably would side with you if it
>>> wasn't
>>> > for two things: We have a release so users just wanting to
>>> understand
>>> > SCA and the basics of Tuscany have something stable to work
>>> with. Also
>>> > this is just a switch, the head of the trunk should be
>>> preserved in a
>>> > branch. Just before the switch I would recommend both have
>>> tags too.
>>> > Doing this doesn't stop any discussion, it doesn't stop bringing
>>> > function/code from the current head back in to Chianti; it even
>>> doesn't
>>> > prevent in the case community decides we prefer to switch back.
>>> >
>>> > Simon Nash wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Jeremy,
>>> >> Before you do this, I'd prefer to see some discussion about the
>>> >> functional differences between chianti and the current trunk code
>>> >> and how we would see these being addressed, as I said in my
>>> >> previous email on this subject. What do you (or others) think
>>> >> about this?
>>> >>
>>> >> Simon
>>> >>
>>> >> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> With the vote in favour of switching, I am about to start moving
>>> >>> chianti into trunk. I will move the current sca parts into a
>>> branch
>>> >>> (branches/pre-chianti) and move the chianti code into trunk.
>>> I will
>>> >>> make the version in the poms 1.0-SNAPSHOT like the SDO tree.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I expect to complete this tomorrow or possibly Wed if there are
>>> >>> build issues. If anyone has a bunch of uncommitted changes
>>> or a big
>>> >>> patch for submission please speak up soon to avoid merge
>>> issues.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Jeremy
>>> >>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
I wasn't asking for an "official" policy statement on this, and
I wasn't suggesting that we stop all innovation and move into a
phase where we only work on things that were part of M1.
By releasing M1, we moved from a phase of focusing purely on
the developer community into a phase of starting to attract
potential users as well. I think we need to strike a balance
between the needs of developers and users. We met some
potential users at ApacheCon, and I expect that we will meet
more at OSCON. For now we can point them to M1, but given
our desire to focus around a single codebase that is actively
being enhanced, I would expect that we would want to be able to
start to point these people to the new codebase in the fairly
near future.
Even from a developer community standpoint, I think there is
considerable value in maintaining a working base level of
functionality that can support end-to-end scenarios. This
allows developers creating new code to exercise that code in
the context of real-world usage, in addition to unit tests.
Simon
Kenneth Tam wrote:
> -0 on ordaining some kind of "official" priority for functional
> equivalency with M1 -- my opinion is that at this stage in the project
> (ie, incubation), developer community is significantly more important
> than user community. I'd rather we take a more free form stance with
> respect to encouraging development in areas people find compelling
> (including of course, the porting of functionality from M1).
>
> On 7/18/06, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> It is true that users who just want a working binary download
>> have the M1 release to work with. However, the Tuscany community
>> itself will benefit from being able to run end to end scenarios
>> to exercise code that they contribute to the new trunk. So if we
>> do make this switch now, I believe that we need to focus as a
>> community on getting the new trunk into a state where it can run
>> end to end scenarios with comparable functionality to what we had
>> previously in M1. I'd feel more comfortable if I saw comments on
>> this list agreeing that this should be the priority immediately
>> following the switch.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> Rick wrote:
>>
>> > For me the vote said it all; its good to go to switch. I think I can
>> > understand your position and probably would side with you if it wasn't
>> > for two things: We have a release so users just wanting to understand
>> > SCA and the basics of Tuscany have something stable to work with. Also
>> > this is just a switch, the head of the trunk should be preserved in a
>> > branch. Just before the switch I would recommend both have tags too.
>> > Doing this doesn't stop any discussion, it doesn't stop bringing
>> > function/code from the current head back in to Chianti; it even doesn't
>> > prevent in the case community decides we prefer to switch back.
>> >
>> > Simon Nash wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jeremy,
>> >> Before you do this, I'd prefer to see some discussion about the
>> >> functional differences between chianti and the current trunk code
>> >> and how we would see these being addressed, as I said in my
>> >> previous email on this subject. What do you (or others) think
>> >> about this?
>> >>
>> >> Simon
>> >>
>> >> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> With the vote in favour of switching, I am about to start moving
>> >>> chianti into trunk. I will move the current sca parts into a branch
>> >>> (branches/pre-chianti) and move the chianti code into trunk. I will
>> >>> make the version in the poms 1.0-SNAPSHOT like the SDO tree.
>> >>>
>> >>> I expect to complete this tomorrow or possibly Wed if there are
>> >>> build issues. If anyone has a bunch of uncommitted changes or a big
>> >>> patch for submission please speak up soon to avoid merge issues.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>> --
>> >>> Jeremy
>> >>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Kenneth Tam <ke...@gmail.com>.
-0 on ordaining some kind of "official" priority for functional
equivalency with M1 -- my opinion is that at this stage in the project
(ie, incubation), developer community is significantly more important
than user community. I'd rather we take a more free form stance with
respect to encouraging development in areas people find compelling
(including of course, the porting of functionality from M1).
On 7/18/06, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> It is true that users who just want a working binary download
> have the M1 release to work with. However, the Tuscany community
> itself will benefit from being able to run end to end scenarios
> to exercise code that they contribute to the new trunk. So if we
> do make this switch now, I believe that we need to focus as a
> community on getting the new trunk into a state where it can run
> end to end scenarios with comparable functionality to what we had
> previously in M1. I'd feel more comfortable if I saw comments on
> this list agreeing that this should be the priority immediately
> following the switch.
>
> Simon
>
> Rick wrote:
>
> > For me the vote said it all; its good to go to switch. I think I can
> > understand your position and probably would side with you if it wasn't
> > for two things: We have a release so users just wanting to understand
> > SCA and the basics of Tuscany have something stable to work with. Also
> > this is just a switch, the head of the trunk should be preserved in a
> > branch. Just before the switch I would recommend both have tags too.
> > Doing this doesn't stop any discussion, it doesn't stop bringing
> > function/code from the current head back in to Chianti; it even doesn't
> > prevent in the case community decides we prefer to switch back.
> >
> > Simon Nash wrote:
> >
> >> Jeremy,
> >> Before you do this, I'd prefer to see some discussion about the
> >> functional differences between chianti and the current trunk code
> >> and how we would see these being addressed, as I said in my
> >> previous email on this subject. What do you (or others) think
> >> about this?
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> >>
> >>> With the vote in favour of switching, I am about to start moving
> >>> chianti into trunk. I will move the current sca parts into a branch
> >>> (branches/pre-chianti) and move the chianti code into trunk. I will
> >>> make the version in the poms 1.0-SNAPSHOT like the SDO tree.
> >>>
> >>> I expect to complete this tomorrow or possibly Wed if there are
> >>> build issues. If anyone has a bunch of uncommitted changes or a big
> >>> patch for submission please speak up soon to avoid merge issues.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> --
> >>> Jeremy
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
It is true that users who just want a working binary download
have the M1 release to work with. However, the Tuscany community
itself will benefit from being able to run end to end scenarios
to exercise code that they contribute to the new trunk. So if we
do make this switch now, I believe that we need to focus as a
community on getting the new trunk into a state where it can run
end to end scenarios with comparable functionality to what we had
previously in M1. I'd feel more comfortable if I saw comments on
this list agreeing that this should be the priority immediately
following the switch.
Simon
Rick wrote:
> For me the vote said it all; its good to go to switch. I think I can
> understand your position and probably would side with you if it wasn't
> for two things: We have a release so users just wanting to understand
> SCA and the basics of Tuscany have something stable to work with. Also
> this is just a switch, the head of the trunk should be preserved in a
> branch. Just before the switch I would recommend both have tags too.
> Doing this doesn't stop any discussion, it doesn't stop bringing
> function/code from the current head back in to Chianti; it even doesn't
> prevent in the case community decides we prefer to switch back.
>
> Simon Nash wrote:
>
>> Jeremy,
>> Before you do this, I'd prefer to see some discussion about the
>> functional differences between chianti and the current trunk code
>> and how we would see these being addressed, as I said in my
>> previous email on this subject. What do you (or others) think
>> about this?
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>>> With the vote in favour of switching, I am about to start moving
>>> chianti into trunk. I will move the current sca parts into a branch
>>> (branches/pre-chianti) and move the chianti code into trunk. I will
>>> make the version in the poms 1.0-SNAPSHOT like the SDO tree.
>>>
>>> I expect to complete this tomorrow or possibly Wed if there are
>>> build issues. If anyone has a bunch of uncommitted changes or a big
>>> patch for submission please speak up soon to avoid merge issues.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> --
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Rick <cr...@gmail.com>.
For me the vote said it all; its good to go to switch. I think I can
understand your position and probably would side with you if it wasn't
for two things: We have a release so users just wanting to understand
SCA and the basics of Tuscany have something stable to work with. Also
this is just a switch, the head of the trunk should be preserved in a
branch. Just before the switch I would recommend both have tags too.
Doing this doesn't stop any discussion, it doesn't stop bringing
function/code from the current head back in to Chianti; it even doesn't
prevent in the case community decides we prefer to switch back.
Simon Nash wrote:
> Jeremy,
> Before you do this, I'd prefer to see some discussion about the
> functional differences between chianti and the current trunk code
> and how we would see these being addressed, as I said in my
> previous email on this subject. What do you (or others) think
> about this?
>
> Simon
>
> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
>> With the vote in favour of switching, I am about to start moving
>> chianti into trunk. I will move the current sca parts into a branch
>> (branches/pre-chianti) and move the chianti code into trunk. I will
>> make the version in the poms 1.0-SNAPSHOT like the SDO tree.
>>
>> I expect to complete this tomorrow or possibly Wed if there are
>> build issues. If anyone has a bunch of uncommitted changes or a big
>> patch for submission please speak up soon to avoid merge issues.
>>
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Jeremy
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com>.
Yes, that would be very useful. Also we could make up some design
documentation from abstracts of this discussion.
Also, I am wondering if it would make sense to move Chianti in phases as the
design issues are discussed, sorted out and implemented. For example we
could target to have a basic HelloWorld working, which demonstrates how
compose components, start the runtime, deploy a composite (or should I say
module) and the client programming model to invoke the services. If this is
the target then we identify the blocks that would be required for this and
expedite towards making this available in the trunk. What I mean by
expedite is the entire community prioritizes to work in a concerted way
towards this. This Once we make this base then the community can get on to
the things that interests them.
There is another perspective I come to this from - assuming the user world
has got a hang of SCA through our M1 release, they would be eager to follow
up on the developments. If the architecture and model has changed, let it
be so, but then can they try this change rightaway from a version of code
from the trunk even if it is just a HelloWorld for now. Or do we ask them
to wait till we get something bulkier with serveral extension types and
containers plugged and working? I would say the former because we need to
keep the interest sustained, especially now that we have some critiques
blogging us down.
Thanks.
- Venkat
On 7/18/06, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Jeremy,
> Before you do this, I'd prefer to see some discussion about the
> functional differences between chianti and the current trunk code
> and how we would see these being addressed, as I said in my
> previous email on this subject. What do you (or others) think
> about this?
>
> Simon
>
> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
> > With the vote in favour of switching, I am about to start moving
> > chianti into trunk. I will move the current sca parts into a branch
> > (branches/pre-chianti) and move the chianti code into trunk. I will
> > make the version in the poms 1.0-SNAPSHOT like the SDO tree.
> >
> > I expect to complete this tomorrow or possibly Wed if there are build
> > issues. If anyone has a bunch of uncommitted changes or a big patch for
> > submission please speak up soon to avoid merge issues.
> >
> > Thanks
> > --
> > Jeremy
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
Jeremy,
Before you do this, I'd prefer to see some discussion about the
functional differences between chianti and the current trunk code
and how we would see these being addressed, as I said in my
previous email on this subject. What do you (or others) think
about this?
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> With the vote in favour of switching, I am about to start moving
> chianti into trunk. I will move the current sca parts into a branch
> (branches/pre-chianti) and move the chianti code into trunk. I will
> make the version in the poms 1.0-SNAPSHOT like the SDO tree.
>
> I expect to complete this tomorrow or possibly Wed if there are build
> issues. If anyone has a bunch of uncommitted changes or a big patch for
> submission please speak up soon to avoid merge issues.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Jeremy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Jul 17, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Jeremy, I have two patches one in SDO-Impl and another in SCA-Tools
> (Java2WSDL tooling) that need to be reviewed and applied to M1+.
> The Jiras
> are Tuscany-535 and Tuscany-120 respectively. But then they are
> to applied
> over M1+. Also, what is the plan for sca-tools in Chianti?
SDO will not be affected (chianti uses a link to SDO from trunk).
The SCA tools only seem to use the XMLUtil class from the model
modules. I would suggest we move the code they need from there (the
name mangling AIUI) into tools and leave them otherwise unchanged.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jeremy, I have two patches one in SDO-Impl and another in SCA-Tools
(Java2WSDL tooling) that need to be reviewed and applied to M1+. The Jiras
are Tuscany-535 and Tuscany-120 respectively. But then they are to applied
over M1+. Also, what is the plan for sca-tools in Chianti?
Thanks
Venkat
On 7/18/06, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> With the vote in favour of switching, I am about to start moving
> chianti into trunk. I will move the current sca parts into a branch
> (branches/pre-chianti) and move the chianti code into trunk. I will
> make the version in the poms 1.0-SNAPSHOT like the SDO tree.
>
> I expect to complete this tomorrow or possibly Wed if there are build
> issues. If anyone has a bunch of uncommitted changes or a big patch
> for submission please speak up soon to avoid merge issues.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Jeremy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: [PATCH] Patch for databinding was: Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Jul 18, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi, Jeremy.
>
> Can you try this patch? It seems that in your environment the SAX
> XMLReader may have a different feature settings on "namespaces" or
> "namespace-prefixes". With the patch, I enforce them by:
>
> reader.setFeature("http://xml.org/sax/features/namespaces",
> true); // Default to true
> reader.setFeature("http://xml.org/sax/features/namespace-prefixes",
> false); // Default to false
> Thanks,
Thanks - it works now
Patch applied.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [PATCH] Patch for databinding was: Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Jeremy.
Can you try this patch? It seems that in your environment the SAX XMLReader
may have a different feature settings on "namespaces" or
"namespace-prefixes". With the patch, I enforce them by:
reader.setFeature("http://xml.org/sax/features/namespaces", true); //
Default to true
reader.setFeature("http://xml.org/sax/features/namespace-prefixes", false);
// Default to false
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <jb...@apache.org>
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Patch for databinding was: Re: Moving chianti to trunk
> On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I ran into this issue once inside Eclipse but cannot reproduce it any
>> more. It's probably related to some settings of the SAX/DOM features on
>> namespace handling. I'll investigate.
>>
>> What JDK do you use? I tried IBM and SUN JDKs and both are fine.
>
> $ java -version
> java version "1.5.0_06"
> Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_06-112)
> Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_06-64, mixed mode, sharing)
>
> on OSX 10.4.7
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
Re: [PATCH] Patch for databinding was: Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ran into this issue once inside Eclipse but cannot reproduce it
> any more. It's probably related to some settings of the SAX/DOM
> features on namespace handling. I'll investigate.
>
> What JDK do you use? I tried IBM and SUN JDKs and both are fine.
$ java -version
java version "1.5.0_06"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_06-112)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_06-64, mixed mode, sharing)
on OSX 10.4.7
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [PATCH] Patch for databinding was: Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I ran into this issue once inside Eclipse but cannot reproduce it any more.
It's probably related to some settings of the SAX/DOM features on namespace
handling. I'll investigate.
What JDK do you use? I tried IBM and SUN JDKs and both are fine.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <jb...@apache.org>
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Patch for databinding was: Re: Moving chianti to trunk
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I can run the all the test cases successfully using "mvn clean install".
>> Can you post me the stacktrace?
>
> I commented out the test bodies. If I uncomment them I get:
>
> Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 2, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.061 sec
> <<< FAILURE!
> testTransform1 (org.apache.tuscany.databinding.impl.MediatorImplTestCase)
> Time elapsed: 0.033 sec <<< ERROR!
> org.apache.tuscany.databinding.TransformationException:
> org.w3c.dom.DOMException: NAMESPACE_ERR: An attempt is made to create or
> change an object in a way which is incorrect with regard to namespaces.
> at org.apache.tuscany.databinding.trax.String2SAX.transform
> (String2SAX.java:47)
> at org.apache.tuscany.databinding.trax.String2SAX.transform
> (String2SAX.java:36)
> at org.apache.tuscany.databinding.impl.MediatorImpl.mediate
> (MediatorImpl.java:62)
> at
> org.apache.tuscany.databinding.impl.MediatorImplTestCase.testTransform1(
> MediatorImplTestCase.java:70)
>
> testTransform2 (org.apache.tuscany.databinding.impl.MediatorImplTestCase)
> Time elapsed: 0.006 sec <<< ERROR!
> org.apache.tuscany.databinding.TransformationException:
> org.w3c.dom.DOMException: NAMESPACE_ERR: An attempt is made to create or
> change an object in a way which is incorrect with regard to namespaces.
> at org.apache.tuscany.databinding.trax.String2SAX.transform
> (String2SAX.java:47)
> at org.apache.tuscany.databinding.trax.String2SAX.transform
> (String2SAX.java:36)
> at org.apache.tuscany.databinding.impl.MediatorImpl.mediate
> (MediatorImpl.java:82)
> at
> org.apache.tuscany.databinding.impl.MediatorImplTestCase.testTransform2(
> MediatorImplTestCase.java:79)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [PATCH] Patch for databinding was: Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Jul 17, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can run the all the test cases successfully using "mvn clean
> install". Can you post me the stacktrace?
I commented out the test bodies. If I uncomment them I get:
Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 2, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.061
sec <<< FAILURE!
testTransform1
(org.apache.tuscany.databinding.impl.MediatorImplTestCase) Time
elapsed: 0.033 sec <<< ERROR!
org.apache.tuscany.databinding.TransformationException:
org.w3c.dom.DOMException: NAMESPACE_ERR: An attempt is made to create
or change an object in a way which is incorrect with regard to
namespaces.
at org.apache.tuscany.databinding.trax.String2SAX.transform
(String2SAX.java:47)
at org.apache.tuscany.databinding.trax.String2SAX.transform
(String2SAX.java:36)
at org.apache.tuscany.databinding.impl.MediatorImpl.mediate
(MediatorImpl.java:62)
at
org.apache.tuscany.databinding.impl.MediatorImplTestCase.testTransform1(
MediatorImplTestCase.java:70)
testTransform2
(org.apache.tuscany.databinding.impl.MediatorImplTestCase) Time
elapsed: 0.006 sec <<< ERROR!
org.apache.tuscany.databinding.TransformationException:
org.w3c.dom.DOMException: NAMESPACE_ERR: An attempt is made to create
or change an object in a way which is incorrect with regard to
namespaces.
at org.apache.tuscany.databinding.trax.String2SAX.transform
(String2SAX.java:47)
at org.apache.tuscany.databinding.trax.String2SAX.transform
(String2SAX.java:36)
at org.apache.tuscany.databinding.impl.MediatorImpl.mediate
(MediatorImpl.java:82)
at
org.apache.tuscany.databinding.impl.MediatorImplTestCase.testTransform2(
MediatorImplTestCase.java:79)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [PATCH] Patch for databinding was: Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I can run the all the test cases successfully using "mvn clean install". Can
you post me the stacktrace?
The patch includes the following:
1) Refactor the transformer interfaces to have PullTransformer,
PushTransformer and DataPipe extend from Transformer
2) Add cache to shortest path to the graph
3) Add annotations for databinding
4) Add more transformer implementations
5) Improve Mediator interface and implementation (spinned off from
TransformerRegistryImpl) (To be integrated as a system service).
6) Add more test casses
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <jb...@apache.org>
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Patch for databinding was: Re: Moving chianti to trunk
>
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:01 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>
>> Hi, Jeremy.
>>
>> I have a big patch for the databinding as attached. It includes code
>> improvements, more transformers and test cases. Please review and apply.
>
> I applied this but it is a big large to review easily - can you break
> down what is going on in there?
>
> I did have a problem with MediatorTestCase failing but rather than hold
> off I commented out the tests. Please can you have a look at those and
> get them working again.
>
> Thanks
> Jeremy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [PATCH] Patch for databinding was: Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:01 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi, Jeremy.
>
> I have a big patch for the databinding as attached. It includes
> code improvements, more transformers and test cases. Please review
> and apply.
I applied this but it is a big large to review easily - can you break
down what is going on in there?
I did have a problem with MediatorTestCase failing but rather than
hold off I commented out the tests. Please can you have a look at
those and get them working again.
Thanks
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
[PATCH] Patch for databinding was: Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Jeremy.
I have a big patch for the databinding as attached. It includes code
improvements, more transformers and test cases. Please review and apply.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <jb...@apache.org>
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 8:30 PM
Subject: Moving chianti to trunk
> With the vote in favour of switching, I am about to start moving chianti
> into trunk. I will move the current sca parts into a branch
> (branches/pre-chianti) and move the chianti code into trunk. I will make
> the version in the poms 1.0-SNAPSHOT like the SDO tree.
>
> I expect to complete this tomorrow or possibly Wed if there are build
> issues. If anyone has a bunch of uncommitted changes or a big patch for
> submission please speak up soon to avoid merge issues.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Jeremy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
Re: Moving chianti to trunk
Posted by Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jeremy,
On 7/18/06, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> With the vote in favour of switching, I am about to start moving
> chianti into trunk. I will move the current sca parts into a branch
> (branches/pre-chianti) and move the chianti code into trunk. I will
> make the version in the poms 1.0-SNAPSHOT like the SDO tree.
>
> I expect to complete this tomorrow or possibly Wed if there are build
> issues. If anyone has a bunch of uncommitted changes or a big patch
> for submission please speak up soon to avoid merge issues.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Jeremy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>