You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cayenne.apache.org by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> on 2008/01/11 19:29:58 UTC
3.0M3 Release Plan
Looking at the changelog, we've done a lot since M2, including the Java 5
transition.
What is the release plan for 3.0 M3 then? I'd imagine we'de want to square
away any remaining API changes related to the Java 5 conversion (at least as
well as we can). Are there any other blocking issues?
It'd be nice to start getting people testing it out. I'm sure if we missed
any Java 5 stuff, our users will let us know in fairly short order.
--
Kevin
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
@Override annotations seems both useful and harmless. I have no
objections to them, and in fact I started using them in the new code.
Andrus
On Jan 12, 2008, at 10:30 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>
> On 12/01/2008, at 5:29 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>
>> What is the release plan for 3.0 M3 then? I'd imagine we'de want
>> to square
>> away any remaining API changes related to the Java 5 conversion (at
>> least as
>> well as we can). Are there any other blocking issues?
>
> There's still a bit of generics to pin down if we want to finish all
> that before M3. Interestingly I notice a similar parallel discussion
> on the WebObjects list at the moment with regard to generics in
> EOFetchSpecification.
>
> Of course there can be as many milestones as we want, but I think
> the Java 5 change is a long way from being completed.
>
> Anyone have objections to me adding @override tags? I find them
> quite useful.
>
> Ari
>
>
>
> -------------------------->
> ish
> http://www.ish.com.au
> Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
> phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>
>
>
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
Internal generics work can occur at any point.
API changes should be minimized, but if they're mostly backward
compatible-ish, I don't see them being a big deal. If anything, I'd rather
start getting some user feedback before we go too far down the wrong path.
Likewise, I think some degree of breakage is acceptable between milestones.
As for @Override, that's fine with me. I like them better as a bug catcher
than as something informative. Most IDEs will show overridden methods, but
if you make a typo in a method signature, it's hard to tell whether or not
it should be overriding something. The annotation essentially gets rid of
that whole class of problems, so +1 from me.
--
Kevin
On 1/12/08 3:30 PM, "Aristedes Maniatis" <ar...@ish.com.au> wrote:
>
> On 12/01/2008, at 5:29 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>
>> What is the release plan for 3.0 M3 then? I'd imagine we'de want to
>> square
>> away any remaining API changes related to the Java 5 conversion (at
>> least as
>> well as we can). Are there any other blocking issues?
>
> There's still a bit of generics to pin down if we want to finish all
> that before M3. Interestingly I notice a similar parallel discussion
> on the WebObjects list at the moment with regard to generics in
> EOFetchSpecification.
>
> Of course there can be as many milestones as we want, but I think the
> Java 5 change is a long way from being completed.
>
> Anyone have objections to me adding @override tags? I find them quite
> useful.
>
> Ari
>
>
>
> -------------------------->
> ish
> http://www.ish.com.au
> Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
> phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>
>
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@ish.com.au>.
On 12/01/2008, at 5:29 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> What is the release plan for 3.0 M3 then? I'd imagine we'de want to
> square
> away any remaining API changes related to the Java 5 conversion (at
> least as
> well as we can). Are there any other blocking issues?
There's still a bit of generics to pin down if we want to finish all
that before M3. Interestingly I notice a similar parallel discussion
on the WebObjects list at the moment with regard to generics in
EOFetchSpecification.
Of course there can be as many milestones as we want, but I think the
Java 5 change is a long way from being completed.
Anyone have objections to me adding @override tags? I find them quite
useful.
Ari
-------------------------->
ish
http://www.ish.com.au
Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
On Jan 14, 2008, at 1:32 AM, Tore Halset wrote:
> Or are they installed on the sun-sponsored thing?
Ari was looking into installing some of them. Not sure what's the
status tho.
Andrus
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
That's what I figured... Can't blame infra either - decentralizing
sysadmin tasks is a Catch-22 situation for them. Anyways, we may wait
for Hudson setup for CI, but it would be very helpful if we could
proceed with DB installation.
IIRC I had much more basic issues with it, such as unit test failures
with embedded HSQLDB due to some missing Sun packages. I can't access
the zone now to try it... Let me ping infra on that.
Andrus
On Jan 14, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> On 14/01/2008, at 10:32 AM, Tore Halset wrote:
>
>> The merge-stuff are not implemented on all databases yet as I do
>> not have access to all of the databases that cayenne supports. Or
>> are they installed on the sun-sponsored thing?
>
> I tried to start installing things on our zone but got stuck on two
> counts:
>
> * installing a CI server on our new box rejected by infra
> * my approach of installing databases using the Solaris packaging
> system rejected also by infra. They would have to be installed and
> compiled each from source, which can be a bit of a pain...
>
> I got a bit frustrated, so I stopped. Instead I set up Cayenne with
> Bamboo on a server in my office, but I haven't got a dedicated box I
> can throw at this right now in order to set up all the databases we
> need. I guess I should return to discussing with infra how we should
> set up our Apache zone properly.
>
>
> Ari
>
>
>
> -------------------------->
> ish
> http://www.ish.com.au
> Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
> phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>
>
>
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@ish.com.au>.
On 14/01/2008, at 10:32 AM, Tore Halset wrote:
> The merge-stuff are not implemented on all databases yet as I do not
> have access to all of the databases that cayenne supports. Or are
> they installed on the sun-sponsored thing?
I tried to start installing things on our zone but got stuck on two
counts:
* installing a CI server on our new box rejected by infra
* my approach of installing databases using the Solaris packaging
system rejected also by infra. They would have to be installed and
compiled each from source, which can be a bit of a pain...
I got a bit frustrated, so I stopped. Instead I set up Cayenne with
Bamboo on a server in my office, but I haven't got a dedicated box I
can throw at this right now in order to set up all the databases we
need. I guess I should return to discussing with infra how we should
set up our Apache zone properly.
Ari
-------------------------->
ish
http://www.ish.com.au
Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Tore Halset <ha...@pvv.ntnu.no>.
On Jan 18, 2008, at 23:22, Kevin Menard wrote:
> I see that you've half fixed CAY-966. Is this something you'd like to
> complete before M3? If not, I think I'm going to test and build the
> artifacts over the weekend.
Do not wait for CAY-966. The merge stuff is working pretty well. The
missing thing is that it only handle Db* and not Obj*
- Tore.
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@ish.com.au>.
On 21/01/2008, at 3:40 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> I just thought of one remaining task - switching the docs to use
> Ari's shell script that scrapes them from the website instead of
> Confluence. Or we can leave that for M4 and now update the docs via
> the old mechanism before we tag.
I've been wanting to do that, but it was a bit of effort to go from my
simple shell script to turn it into a maven plugin, so still currently
undone.
I don't think it should hold us up for this milestone, since I really
don't know when I'll be able to sit down and do this one.
Ari
-------------------------->
ish
http://www.ish.com.au
Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Ok, just created M3 tag... If we find must-fix bugs, we'll have to
commit them to both trunk and M3 tag. If somebody wants to include a
new code in the release, please explain why it can't wait till M4, and
we'll then delete the tag and recreate it..
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cayenne/main/tags/3.0M3/
Please use the tag code to do release testing...
Andrus
On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:25 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
> On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>
>> It's hard for me to comment on the documentation, because I'm not
>> really
>> sure what's being discussed. In general, I'd say I'm more of a fan
>> of
>> getting M3 out there and following up with a faster M4.
>
> I just updated the docs in SVN the old way. I think we are ready to
> tag the release. Objections?
>
> Andrus
>
>
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> It's hard for me to comment on the documentation, because I'm not
> really
> sure what's being discussed. In general, I'd say I'm more of a fan of
> getting M3 out there and following up with a faster M4.
I just updated the docs in SVN the old way. I think we are ready to
tag the release. Objections?
Andrus
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
You're correct. We should create the appropriate tag, although I suppose it
could also be done ex post facto providing that the revision number is
known.
It's hard for me to comment on the documentation, because I'm not really
sure what's being discussed. In general, I'd say I'm more of a fan of
getting M3 out there and following up with a faster M4.
As it stands, M3 probably won't actually get released for another week,
given the time to build assemblies, test, and vote. Michael had expressed
concern last time about not being able to test during the week, so it'd
likely get pushed out until after the weekend.
Granted, there's no huge rush, but as I said, I'd like to start doing more
frequent releases.
--
Kevin
On 1/20/08 11:40 AM, "Andrus Adamchik" <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>
>> I think I'm going to test and build the
>> artifacts over the weekend.
>
> Folks, should we create a release tag at this point? Otherwise ongoing
> trunk commits would render meaningless any testing being done.
>
> Or let me rephrase - what else we need to do before we can create a tag?
>
> I just thought of one remaining task - switching the docs to use Ari's
> shell script that scrapes them from the website instead of Confluence.
> Or we can leave that for M4 and now update the docs via the old
> mechanism before we tag.
>
> Andrus
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> I think I'm going to test and build the
> artifacts over the weekend.
Folks, should we create a release tag at this point? Otherwise ongoing
trunk commits would render meaningless any testing being done.
Or let me rephrase - what else we need to do before we can create a tag?
I just thought of one remaining task - switching the docs to use Ari's
shell script that scrapes them from the website instead of Confluence.
Or we can leave that for M4 and now update the docs via the old
mechanism before we tag.
Andrus
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
Tore,
I see that you've half fixed CAY-966. Is this something you'd like to
complete before M3? If not, I think I'm going to test and build the
artifacts over the weekend.
--
Kevin
On 1/13/08 6:32 PM, "Tore Halset" <ha...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
> I am looking forward to M3.
>
> The merge-stuff are not implemented on all databases yet as I do not
> have access to all of the databases that cayenne supports. Or are they
> installed on the sun-sponsored thing?
>
> - Tore.
>
> On Jan 11, 2008, at 19:29, Kevin Menard wrote:
>
>> Looking at the changelog, we've done a lot since M2, including the
>> Java 5
>> transition.
>>
>> What is the release plan for 3.0 M3 then? I'd imagine we'de want to
>> square
>> away any remaining API changes related to the Java 5 conversion (at
>> least as
>> well as we can). Are there any other blocking issues?
>>
>> It'd be nice to start getting people testing it out. I'm sure if we
>> missed
>> any Java 5 stuff, our users will let us know in fairly short order.
>>
>> --
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Tore Halset <ha...@pvv.ntnu.no>.
I am looking forward to M3.
The merge-stuff are not implemented on all databases yet as I do not
have access to all of the databases that cayenne supports. Or are they
installed on the sun-sponsored thing?
- Tore.
On Jan 11, 2008, at 19:29, Kevin Menard wrote:
> Looking at the changelog, we've done a lot since M2, including the
> Java 5
> transition.
>
> What is the release plan for 3.0 M3 then? I'd imagine we'de want to
> square
> away any remaining API changes related to the Java 5 conversion (at
> least as
> well as we can). Are there any other blocking issues?
>
> It'd be nice to start getting people testing it out. I'm sure if we
> missed
> any Java 5 stuff, our users will let us know in fairly short order.
>
> --
> Kevin
>
>
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Michael Gentry <bl...@gmail.com>.
I was going to try to get the logging glitch with auto-incrementing
PKs fixed this weekend. Not a show-stopper, though.
/dev/mrg
On Jan 11, 2008 1:29 PM, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
> Looking at the changelog, we've done a lot since M2, including the Java 5
> transition.
>
> What is the release plan for 3.0 M3 then? I'd imagine we'de want to square
> away any remaining API changes related to the Java 5 conversion (at least as
> well as we can). Are there any other blocking issues?
>
> It'd be nice to start getting people testing it out. I'm sure if we missed
> any Java 5 stuff, our users will let us know in fairly short order.
>
> --
> Kevin
>
>
Re: 3.0M3 Release Plan
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Good idea. As far as I am concerned we are ready to go with M3.
Andrus
On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> Looking at the changelog, we've done a lot since M2, including the
> Java 5
> transition.
>
> What is the release plan for 3.0 M3 then? I'd imagine we'de want to
> square
> away any remaining API changes related to the Java 5 conversion (at
> least as
> well as we can). Are there any other blocking issues?
>
> It'd be nice to start getting people testing it out. I'm sure if we
> missed
> any Java 5 stuff, our users will let us know in fairly short order.
>
> --
> Kevin
>
>