First post-graduation OpenJPA release

[Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>]

Hi,

There's no urgency, but I think we should start discussing what our  
first release should be out of incubation.

Let's take a look at the issues in JIRA and decide if we think that  
we're ready for a 1.0 release. If not, we can cut a 0.9.8 release and  
make a list of 1.0 bugs/features to follow.

Craig

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Re: First post-graduation OpenJPA release

[robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On 5/20/07, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   +1 -- assuming the code is ready to go, I agree that it's a good
> idea to go straight to 1.0.
>
>   +1 as well to waiting until the TLP infrastructure is complete,
> which could take a week or more to unbrand from the Incubator, move
> the website content, etc.

you will also need to set up the release infrastructure (mirroring,
download page and so on)

i recommend setting this up first (yes, apache should have
comprehensive scripts to do this but we don't as yet) so that people
can check everything

it's worth investing a little time on creating a good download page.
for many potential users, this is the only page they are going to
read. so, it's worth adding information about OpenJPA on that page.
the same content as the release notes is fine.

the documentation is on http://www.apache.org/dev. the mirrors take
24-48 to sync so you need to hold off the announcement till they have
so that the release is available for downloaders when the announcement
is made.

it's best to keep a record of all releases on the website. apache
releases are archived indefinitely and it's not uncommon for people to
want to know about historic releases. so, it's good to keep details of
each release around on the website. this is also good for indexing.
consider keeping full documentation of each release available on the
site.

- robert

Re: First post-graduation OpenJPA release

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

it's entirely up to you/us.  this is a top level project and can  
choose it's own way :)

geir

On May 20, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

> It sounds like there are a bunch of new things that we'll be doing in
> this process; maybe we should do a 0.9.8 first to get the various
> artifacts all sorted out, and then do a 1.0?
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 5/20/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> that said, this is the OpenJPA project, and no matter what the state
>> of the infra move, anything that this group does now is independent
>> and disconnected from the incuabtor
>>
>>
>> On May 19, 2007, at 10:15 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>
>> >  +1 -- assuming the code is ready to go, I agree that it's a good
>> > idea to go straight to 1.0.
>> >
>> >  +1 as well to waiting until the TLP infrastructure is complete,
>> > which could take a week or more to unbrand from the Incubator, move
>> > the website content, etc.
>> >
>> > Eddie
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/19/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I personally lean towards just bumping it up to 1.0 and cutting a
>> >> release as soon as possible after we complete the incubator->TLP
>> >> process. A release number < 1.0 suggests to so many people that a
>> >> product is not production-ready, and OpenJPA is so mature and  
>> in use
>> >> in so many mission-critical systems that I think we should just  
>> bump
>> >> all the open issues to a 1.0.1 or 1.1 release and get a 1.0  
>> release
>> >> out in the public.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On May 19, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > There's no urgency, but I think we should start discussing  
>> what our
>> >> > first release should be out of incubation.
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's take a look at the issues in JIRA and decide if we  
>> think that
>> >> > we're ready for a 1.0 release. If not, we can cut a 0.9.8  
>> release
>> >> > and make a list of 1.0 bugs/features to follow.
>> >> >
>> >> > Craig
>> >> >
>> >> > Craig Russell
>> >> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>> >> products/jdo
>> >> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> >> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907

Re: First post-graduation OpenJPA release

[Dhrubo <dh...@gmail.com>]

The documentation probably needs some work. It doesnot look too friendly at
this moment for starters.

~dhrubo

On 5/20/07, Patrick Linskey <pl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It sounds like there are a bunch of new things that we'll be doing in
> this process; maybe we should do a 0.9.8 first to get the various
> artifacts all sorted out, and then do a 1.0?
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 5/20/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > that said, this is the OpenJPA project, and no matter what the state
> > of the infra move, anything that this group does now is independent
> > and disconnected from the incuabtor
> >
> >
> > On May 19, 2007, at 10:15 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> >
> > >  +1 -- assuming the code is ready to go, I agree that it's a good
> > > idea to go straight to 1.0.
> > >
> > >  +1 as well to waiting until the TLP infrastructure is complete,
> > > which could take a week or more to unbrand from the Incubator, move
> > > the website content, etc.
> > >
> > > Eddie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/19/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I personally lean towards just bumping it up to 1.0 and cutting a
> > >> release as soon as possible after we complete the incubator->TLP
> > >> process. A release number < 1.0 suggests to so many people that a
> > >> product is not production-ready, and OpenJPA is so mature and in use
> > >> in so many mission-critical systems that I think we should just bump
> > >> all the open issues to a 1.0.1 or 1.1 release and get a 1.0 release
> > >> out in the public.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On May 19, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> >
> > >> > There's no urgency, but I think we should start discussing what our
> > >> > first release should be out of incubation.
> > >> >
> > >> > Let's take a look at the issues in JIRA and decide if we think that
> > >> > we're ready for a 1.0 release. If not, we can cut a 0.9.8 release
> > >> > and make a list of 1.0 bugs/features to follow.
> > >> >
> > >> > Craig
> > >> >
> > >> > Craig Russell
> > >> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
> > >> products/jdo
> > >> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > >> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907
>



-- 
Thanks,
Dhrubo
<a href="http://wkccp.com/gmail/gmail1/gmail.php?user=dhrubo.kayal&gmail.png"></a>

Re: First post-graduation OpenJPA release

[Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>]

I'll second two things that David mentioned:

1. Release 1.0 first. We have a release that as others have said,  
passes the JSR 220 TCK and is production-ready. Let's make some  
noise. Even though we won't have the incubator to officially bless  
the releases, it will still take some time to get out.

And in the middle of the release, we will likely have to deal with  
the change of repository from incubator to openjpa. (I think Eddie is  
overly optimistic in thinking that the incubator => tlp process will  
only take a week). But I don't think we need to wait until it's  
complete to start the release process.

Now, we need a release manager volunteer.

2. Scrub the bugs in JIRA. I think we should go through them and make  
sure there are no showstoppers for a 1.0 release.

3. Just one more thing. It doesn't really require a JIRA to track,  
but a JIRA per area might be useful so we don't get in each others'  
way. The wiki, site, and doc need to all be updated to remove the  
incubating disclaimer.

Craig

On May 20, 2007, at 11:14 AM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> On May 20, 2007, at 10:25 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>
>> It sounds like there are a bunch of new things that we'll be doing in
>> this process; maybe we should do a 0.9.8 first to get the various
>> artifacts all sorted out, and then do a 1.0?
>
> I think that there will be enough confusion and retries to get an  
> acceptable 1.0 release out with the moved infrastructure that  
> there's no need to complicate the process with an immediate version  
> change.  In other words, go for 1.0 now.
>
> I do think you should review the jiras a bit before releasing.  For  
> instance I'm sure you want to apply the 2nd patch to OPENJPA-148 or  
> undo the first patch since the first patch makes it really easy to  
> create an NPE.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>>
>> -Patrick
>>
>> On 5/20/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> that said, this is the OpenJPA project, and no matter what the state
>>> of the infra move, anything that this group does now is independent
>>> and disconnected from the incuabtor
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 19, 2007, at 10:15 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>
>>> >  +1 -- assuming the code is ready to go, I agree that it's a good
>>> > idea to go straight to 1.0.
>>> >
>>> >  +1 as well to waiting until the TLP infrastructure is complete,
>>> > which could take a week or more to unbrand from the Incubator,  
>>> move
>>> > the website content, etc.
>>> >
>>> > Eddie
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 5/19/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I personally lean towards just bumping it up to 1.0 and cutting a
>>> >> release as soon as possible after we complete the incubator->TLP
>>> >> process. A release number < 1.0 suggests to so many people that a
>>> >> product is not production-ready, and OpenJPA is so mature and  
>>> in use
>>> >> in so many mission-critical systems that I think we should  
>>> just bump
>>> >> all the open issues to a 1.0.1 or 1.1 release and get a 1.0  
>>> release
>>> >> out in the public.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On May 19, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > There's no urgency, but I think we should start discussing  
>>> what our
>>> >> > first release should be out of incubation.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Let's take a look at the issues in JIRA and decide if we  
>>> think that
>>> >> > we're ready for a 1.0 release. If not, we can cut a 0.9.8  
>>> release
>>> >> > and make a list of 1.0 bugs/features to follow.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Craig
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Craig Russell
>>> >> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>>> >> products/jdo
>>> >> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> >> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Patrick Linskey
>> 202 669 5907
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Re: First post-graduation OpenJPA release

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

On May 20, 2007, at 10:25 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

> It sounds like there are a bunch of new things that we'll be doing in
> this process; maybe we should do a 0.9.8 first to get the various
> artifacts all sorted out, and then do a 1.0?

I think that there will be enough confusion and retries to get an  
acceptable 1.0 release out with the moved infrastructure that there's  
no need to complicate the process with an immediate version change.   
In other words, go for 1.0 now.

I do think you should review the jiras a bit before releasing.  For  
instance I'm sure you want to apply the 2nd patch to OPENJPA-148 or  
undo the first patch since the first patch makes it really easy to  
create an NPE.

thanks
david jencks


>
> -Patrick
>
> On 5/20/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> that said, this is the OpenJPA project, and no matter what the state
>> of the infra move, anything that this group does now is independent
>> and disconnected from the incuabtor
>>
>>
>> On May 19, 2007, at 10:15 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>
>> >  +1 -- assuming the code is ready to go, I agree that it's a good
>> > idea to go straight to 1.0.
>> >
>> >  +1 as well to waiting until the TLP infrastructure is complete,
>> > which could take a week or more to unbrand from the Incubator, move
>> > the website content, etc.
>> >
>> > Eddie
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/19/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I personally lean towards just bumping it up to 1.0 and cutting a
>> >> release as soon as possible after we complete the incubator->TLP
>> >> process. A release number < 1.0 suggests to so many people that a
>> >> product is not production-ready, and OpenJPA is so mature and  
>> in use
>> >> in so many mission-critical systems that I think we should just  
>> bump
>> >> all the open issues to a 1.0.1 or 1.1 release and get a 1.0  
>> release
>> >> out in the public.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On May 19, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > There's no urgency, but I think we should start discussing  
>> what our
>> >> > first release should be out of incubation.
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's take a look at the issues in JIRA and decide if we  
>> think that
>> >> > we're ready for a 1.0 release. If not, we can cut a 0.9.8  
>> release
>> >> > and make a list of 1.0 bugs/features to follow.
>> >> >
>> >> > Craig
>> >> >
>> >> > Craig Russell
>> >> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>> >> products/jdo
>> >> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> >> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907

Re: First post-graduation OpenJPA release

[Patrick Linskey <pl...@gmail.com>]

It sounds like there are a bunch of new things that we'll be doing in
this process; maybe we should do a 0.9.8 first to get the various
artifacts all sorted out, and then do a 1.0?

-Patrick

On 5/20/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> that said, this is the OpenJPA project, and no matter what the state
> of the infra move, anything that this group does now is independent
> and disconnected from the incuabtor
>
>
> On May 19, 2007, at 10:15 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>
> >  +1 -- assuming the code is ready to go, I agree that it's a good
> > idea to go straight to 1.0.
> >
> >  +1 as well to waiting until the TLP infrastructure is complete,
> > which could take a week or more to unbrand from the Incubator, move
> > the website content, etc.
> >
> > Eddie
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/19/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I personally lean towards just bumping it up to 1.0 and cutting a
> >> release as soon as possible after we complete the incubator->TLP
> >> process. A release number < 1.0 suggests to so many people that a
> >> product is not production-ready, and OpenJPA is so mature and in use
> >> in so many mission-critical systems that I think we should just bump
> >> all the open issues to a 1.0.1 or 1.1 release and get a 1.0 release
> >> out in the public.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 19, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > There's no urgency, but I think we should start discussing what our
> >> > first release should be out of incubation.
> >> >
> >> > Let's take a look at the issues in JIRA and decide if we think that
> >> > we're ready for a 1.0 release. If not, we can cut a 0.9.8 release
> >> > and make a list of 1.0 bugs/features to follow.
> >> >
> >> > Craig
> >> >
> >> > Craig Russell
> >> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
> >> products/jdo
> >> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> >> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>


-- 
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907

Re: First post-graduation OpenJPA release

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

that said, this is the OpenJPA project, and no matter what the state  
of the infra move, anything that this group does now is independent  
and disconnected from the incuabtor


On May 19, 2007, at 10:15 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:

>  +1 -- assuming the code is ready to go, I agree that it's a good
> idea to go straight to 1.0.
>
>  +1 as well to waiting until the TLP infrastructure is complete,
> which could take a week or more to unbrand from the Incubator, move
> the website content, etc.
>
> Eddie
>
>
>
> On 5/19/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I personally lean towards just bumping it up to 1.0 and cutting a
>> release as soon as possible after we complete the incubator->TLP
>> process. A release number < 1.0 suggests to so many people that a
>> product is not production-ready, and OpenJPA is so mature and in use
>> in so many mission-critical systems that I think we should just bump
>> all the open issues to a 1.0.1 or 1.1 release and get a 1.0 release
>> out in the public.
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 19, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > There's no urgency, but I think we should start discussing what our
>> > first release should be out of incubation.
>> >
>> > Let's take a look at the issues in JIRA and decide if we think that
>> > we're ready for a 1.0 release. If not, we can cut a 0.9.8 release
>> > and make a list of 1.0 bugs/features to follow.
>> >
>> > Craig
>> >
>> > Craig Russell
>> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/ 
>> products/jdo
>> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>> >
>>
>>

Re: First post-graduation OpenJPA release

[Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>]

  +1 -- assuming the code is ready to go, I agree that it's a good
idea to go straight to 1.0.

  +1 as well to waiting until the TLP infrastructure is complete,
which could take a week or more to unbrand from the Incubator, move
the website content, etc.

Eddie



On 5/19/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I personally lean towards just bumping it up to 1.0 and cutting a
> release as soon as possible after we complete the incubator->TLP
> process. A release number < 1.0 suggests to so many people that a
> product is not production-ready, and OpenJPA is so mature and in use
> in so many mission-critical systems that I think we should just bump
> all the open issues to a 1.0.1 or 1.1 release and get a 1.0 release
> out in the public.
>
>
>
> On May 19, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > There's no urgency, but I think we should start discussing what our
> > first release should be out of incubation.
> >
> > Let's take a look at the issues in JIRA and decide if we think that
> > we're ready for a 1.0 release. If not, we can cut a 0.9.8 release
> > and make a list of 1.0 bugs/features to follow.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > Craig Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
>
>

Re: First post-graduation OpenJPA release

[Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>]

I personally lean towards just bumping it up to 1.0 and cutting a  
release as soon as possible after we complete the incubator->TLP  
process. A release number < 1.0 suggests to so many people that a  
product is not production-ready, and OpenJPA is so mature and in use  
in so many mission-critical systems that I think we should just bump  
all the open issues to a 1.0.1 or 1.1 release and get a 1.0 release  
out in the public.



On May 19, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There's no urgency, but I think we should start discussing what our  
> first release should be out of incubation.
>
> Let's take a look at the issues in JIRA and decide if we think that  
> we're ready for a 1.0 release. If not, we can cut a 0.9.8 release  
> and make a list of 1.0 bugs/features to follow.
>
> Craig
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>