You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> on 2007/03/07 17:56:20 UTC
[general] proposal : starting a release train
This is a new thread, building on the thread that Mikhail started, to
get away from some of the shoals we encountered.
I'd like to propose we start a formal release schedule :
* Monthly releases, targeted for the last day of each
month. (IOW, avoid the April 1 release)
* For some set of platforms that we support
* Regression free (if we support an app or feature in release X,
we support it in X+1 unless we agree in a vote to
regress).
A lot of good things will come from starting down this road :
1) We can start putting together the process to decide on "code
freeze", building and testing, etc.
2) This will allow us to do JIRA triage that is meaningful - we can
pre-set the releases in JIRA, and bucket the JIRAs into the release
buckets
3) We can chart out what we want to do in Wiki (and then harvest for
the site) what we hope to accomplish in each release. Up to now, the
roadmap was very high-level, and for the most part, we've been
amazingly good at following it (especially considering it was a SWAG
done in response to a question I got on a concall once...) I would
love to see us chart out the remainder of the API, some sense of VM
feature (like "switch to GCv5"), and a set of apps we plan to have
running.
An important element to this will be naming. I think that as we're
just figuring this out, we should avoid date-oriented names (like
"March", "April"...) so we can shift the schedule as need be. While
I like the "M1, M2, M3" scheme, I personally utterly detest the "1.0-
M1" approach, as it ties your hands horribly. I think that we should
avoid prefixing a version number for now, and use version numbers
when we get the JCK and can plan out a 0.5, 0.6, 0.7... to 1.0 train
So it could be
Apache Harmony Pre M1
Apache Harmony Pre M2
Apache Harmony Pre M3
...
for now. This is really common and banal. Boring....
We're building on the shoulders of giants here, and I think it would
be nice to honor those that came before us. Here's a list of great
people in the history of Java who I'd love to honor, as many are my
heros :
1) "Hamilton" (Graham, The Enforcer)
2) "Bloch" (Josh, API hero)
3) "Gafter" (Neil, API hero)
4) "Bracha" (Gilad, VM hero)
5) "Click" (Cliff Click, hotspot hero)
6) "Gingel" (Rob, Chief Engineer, and guy who grokked OSS)
7) "Detlefs" (David, GC hero)
8) "Lindholm" (Tim, VM spec guy)
9) "Yellin" (Frank, VM spec guy)
Thoughts? Comments? Flames?
geir
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by Naveen Neelakantam <ne...@uiuc.edu>.
On Mar 7, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> for now. This is really common and banal. Boring....
>>
>> We're building on the shoulders of giants here, and I think it
>> would be nice to honor those that came before us. Here's a list
>> of great people in the history of Java who I'd love to honor, as
>> many are my heros :
>>
>> 1) "Hamilton" (Graham, The Enforcer)
>> 2) "Bloch" (Josh, API hero)
>> 3) "Gafter" (Neil, API hero)
>> 4) "Bracha" (Gilad, VM hero)
>> 5) "Click" (Cliff Click, hotspot hero)
>> 6) "Gingel" (Rob, Chief Engineer, and guy who grokked OSS)
>> 7) "Detlefs" (David, GC hero)
>> 8) "Lindholm" (Tim, VM spec guy)
>> 9) "Yellin" (Frank, VM spec guy)
>>
>
>
> For the clue-impaired, this was a joke... These are all living
> people, so we wouldn't do it...
>
> (I do admire them all, though)
>
> geir
>
I actually thought it was pretty neat!
(not the first time I've missed the joke)
Naveen
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Mar 7, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> [SNIP]
>
> for now. This is really common and banal. Boring....
>
> We're building on the shoulders of giants here, and I think it
> would be nice to honor those that came before us. Here's a list of
> great people in the history of Java who I'd love to honor, as many
> are my heros :
>
> 1) "Hamilton" (Graham, The Enforcer)
> 2) "Bloch" (Josh, API hero)
> 3) "Gafter" (Neil, API hero)
> 4) "Bracha" (Gilad, VM hero)
> 5) "Click" (Cliff Click, hotspot hero)
> 6) "Gingel" (Rob, Chief Engineer, and guy who grokked OSS)
> 7) "Detlefs" (David, GC hero)
> 8) "Lindholm" (Tim, VM spec guy)
> 9) "Yellin" (Frank, VM spec guy)
>
For the clue-impaired, this was a joke... These are all living
people, so we wouldn't do it...
(I do admire them all, though)
geir
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Mar 9, 2007, at 2:01 AM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> On 08/03/07, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > I just want to get us going w/ the release train
>> > geir
>>
>> I agree. If we want to get away from this completely, just use a date
>> stamp (e.g. 20070307) and be done with it.
>
> +1 for date stamp instead.
You can't, because we want to be able to plan - to have named
releases that are planned into the future we can rally around. Have
a list in wiki/website with a set of milestones, the features, bugs,
etc. I'd rather not tie it to dates, because it would be weird if
the schedule slips to announce the march release in april, if you see
what I mean.
I think you're missing what I'm trying to get across here.
Since there's no real objection to the milestone naming "M1, M2,
M3..." we can start with that.
geir
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com>.
On 08/03/07, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I just want to get us going w/ the release train
> > geir
>
> I agree. If we want to get away from this completely, just use a date
> stamp (e.g. 20070307) and be done with it.
+1 for date stamp instead.
Alex.
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Nathan Beyer wrote:
> On 3/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:06 PM, Nathan Beyer wrote:
>>
>> > Of all the suggested version, I'd vote for - Apache Harmony Java SE
>> > 5 M1.
>> >
>> > If we have to worry about the name we could replace Java SE with
>> "JSE"
>> > or "java se".
>> >
>> > After the full release, we'll have to do something like "update
>> 1" or
>> > whatever, so the run would look something like this, I guess.
>> >
>> > Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1
>> > Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M2
>> > Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M3
>> > ...
>> > Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R1 (official release)
>>
>> Have you ever seen that before anywhere else?
>
> What do you mean? Other than your suggestion above, no.
I mean if you've ever seen someone call their release "R1"
>>
>> > ...
>> > Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R2 (update/fix)
>> > Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R3 (update/fix)
>> >
>> > I'd also be cool with using 'alpha 1' and 'beta 1' instead of Mx.
>>
>> I think of alpha and beta as "getting close" and we aren't there
>> yet.
>>
>> How about "pre 1" "pre 2" "pre 3" so it's clear we aren't 1.0
>> yet, and then we don't have confusion later when we decide on a real
>> version naming scheme. I don't think we need to solve it all now.
>>
>> I just want to get us going w/ the release train
>> g
>> eir
>
> I agree. If we want to get away from this completely, just use a date
> stamp (e.g. 20070307) and be done with it.
The reason why I brought up the naming so that we can plan forward in
time and have targetted milestones, each with a tentative date and a
set of features, improvements, bugfixes that we wish to get in there.
geir
>
> -Nathan
>>
>>
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
On 3/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:06 PM, Nathan Beyer wrote:
>
> > Of all the suggested version, I'd vote for - Apache Harmony Java SE
> > 5 M1.
> >
> > If we have to worry about the name we could replace Java SE with "JSE"
> > or "java se".
> >
> > After the full release, we'll have to do something like "update 1" or
> > whatever, so the run would look something like this, I guess.
> >
> > Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1
> > Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M2
> > Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M3
> > ...
> > Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R1 (official release)
>
> Have you ever seen that before anywhere else?
What do you mean? Other than your suggestion above, no.
>
> > ...
> > Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R2 (update/fix)
> > Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R3 (update/fix)
> >
> > I'd also be cool with using 'alpha 1' and 'beta 1' instead of Mx.
>
> I think of alpha and beta as "getting close" and we aren't there yet.
>
> How about "pre 1" "pre 2" "pre 3" so it's clear we aren't 1.0
> yet, and then we don't have confusion later when we decide on a real
> version naming scheme. I don't think we need to solve it all now.
>
> I just want to get us going w/ the release train
> g
> eir
I agree. If we want to get away from this completely, just use a date
stamp (e.g. 20070307) and be done with it.
-Nathan
>
>
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:06 PM, Nathan Beyer wrote:
> Of all the suggested version, I'd vote for - Apache Harmony Java SE
> 5 M1.
>
> If we have to worry about the name we could replace Java SE with "JSE"
> or "java se".
>
> After the full release, we'll have to do something like "update 1" or
> whatever, so the run would look something like this, I guess.
>
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M2
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M3
> ...
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R1 (official release)
Have you ever seen that before anywhere else?
> ...
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R2 (update/fix)
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R3 (update/fix)
>
> I'd also be cool with using 'alpha 1' and 'beta 1' instead of Mx.
I think of alpha and beta as "getting close" and we aren't there yet.
How about "pre 1" "pre 2" "pre 3" so it's clear we aren't 1.0
yet, and then we don't have confusion later when we decide on a real
version naming scheme. I don't think we need to solve it all now.
I just want to get us going w/ the release train
g
eir
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
Of all the suggested version, I'd vote for - Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1.
If we have to worry about the name we could replace Java SE with "JSE"
or "java se".
After the full release, we'll have to do something like "update 1" or
whatever, so the run would look something like this, I guess.
Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1
Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M2
Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M3
...
Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R1 (official release)
...
Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R2 (update/fix)
Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R3 (update/fix)
I'd also be cool with using 'alpha 1' and 'beta 1' instead of Mx.
-Nathan
On 3/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:23 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > On 3/8/07, Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 08/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we
> >> don't
> >> > > get confused in the future. Apache Harmony 1.0M1 would make
> >> sense, or
> >> > > if we want to sync with the proposed Java versioning numbers then
> >> > > Apache Harmony 5.0M1 might make sense.
> >> >
> >> > Please not 1.0M1. Please please please.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > another reason: once you start publishing 1.0XXX releases, the world
> > outside tends (wrongly) to think that harmony is at 1.0
>
> That describes it fairly well for me. I've experienced this in other
> places, and tagging anything w/ a 1.0 sets an expectation.
>
> I'm far happier to manage expectations than have them managed for me,
> so to speak.
>
> For me, I'd put the 1.0 on it when we have an "alpha", or "beta" or
> "rc1" - when we're doing TCK, have a handle on what needs to be done,
> and getting close to seeing 'all green' in the TCK tools.
>
> For now, I can live w/ fractions (0.5), but there is a problem there
> - I've seen projects that did that and got onto what I jokingly refer
> to an asymptotic approach to 1.0, such as
>
> 0.91
> 0.915
> 0.92
> 0.92333444222
>
> :)
>
> I think castor had that problem. Always "almost there".
>
> Unlike something like, say, Apache Velocity, where we could decide
> "Aw hell, lets call it 1.0", we have a hard boundary at the moment
> before we go 1.0, namely Java SE 5 compatibility. So I want to avoid
> being forced into naming contortions. That's why I proposed names.
>
> geir
>
>
>
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:23 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 3/8/07, Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 08/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
>> >
>> > > We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we
>> don't
>> > > get confused in the future. Apache Harmony 1.0M1 would make
>> sense, or
>> > > if we want to sync with the proposed Java versioning numbers then
>> > > Apache Harmony 5.0M1 might make sense.
>> >
>> > Please not 1.0M1. Please please please.
>>
>> Why?
>
> another reason: once you start publishing 1.0XXX releases, the world
> outside tends (wrongly) to think that harmony is at 1.0
That describes it fairly well for me. I've experienced this in other
places, and tagging anything w/ a 1.0 sets an expectation.
I'm far happier to manage expectations than have them managed for me,
so to speak.
For me, I'd put the 1.0 on it when we have an "alpha", or "beta" or
"rc1" - when we're doing TCK, have a handle on what needs to be done,
and getting close to seeing 'all green' in the TCK tools.
For now, I can live w/ fractions (0.5), but there is a problem there
- I've seen projects that did that and got onto what I jokingly refer
to an asymptotic approach to 1.0, such as
0.91
0.915
0.92
0.92333444222
:)
I think castor had that problem. Always "almost there".
Unlike something like, say, Apache Velocity, where we could decide
"Aw hell, lets call it 1.0", we have a hard boundary at the moment
before we go 1.0, namely Java SE 5 compatibility. So I want to avoid
being forced into naming contortions. That's why I proposed names.
geir
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 3/8/07, Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> >
> > > We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we don't
> > > get confused in the future. Apache Harmony 1.0M1 would make sense, or
> > > if we want to sync with the proposed Java versioning numbers then
> > > Apache Harmony 5.0M1 might make sense.
> >
> > Please not 1.0M1. Please please please.
>
> Why?
another reason: once you start publishing 1.0XXX releases, the world
outside tends (wrongly) to think that harmony is at 1.0
> And what would you call the first milestone release targeted at e.g.
> Java 6 after the Harmony Java 5 is out of the door?
that is quite a different question
ATM harmony is still a work in progress without a mature, stable
release. it's important to manage expectations and releases are part
of that. numbering releases potentially opens up a whole world of pain
as well as reducing the impact of the final release.
for example, users will want to know exactly what the number means.
this is a tough question to answer: yes, people are proud about the
progress made but don't want to waste too much time on questions from
inexperienced users and don't want to raise expectations too high
until harmony is right. there really isn't a good answer. not
numbering elegantly sidesteps this problem. ISTM that this milestone
train is aimed at people with knowledge and sympathy for harmony. it
will downstream packages to test and prepare for the final full
release. it will allow experienced users to test a fixed version of
harmony on their machines.
- robert
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com>.
On 08/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
>
> > We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we don't
> > get confused in the future. Apache Harmony 1.0M1 would make sense, or
> > if we want to sync with the proposed Java versioning numbers then
> > Apache Harmony 5.0M1 might make sense.
>
> Please not 1.0M1. Please please please.
Why?
And what would you call the first milestone release targeted at e.g.
Java 6 after the Harmony Java 5 is out of the door?
Alex.
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com>.
On 08/03/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apache releases are preserved for as long
> as the foundation lives. badly named milestones can't simply be
> deleted.
And that's exactly why Apache Harmony M1 is a bad name. Note also that
Apache Harmony M1 > Apache Harmony 1.0, or Apache Harmony 5.0, or
whatever.
> typically, the problems happen months or years down the line.
> automatic dependency tools or users get confused by the load of 1.x.y
> releases most of which were never intended for long term support. if
> you're lucky, you just get complaints from users. if you're unlucky
> other source projects start depending on releases with subtly
> different and incompatible semantics.
So if you're worried about the 1.0, use 0.9 instead. Works for Fop.
Alex.
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 3/8/07, Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/03/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Please. Give me one system that can't handle a major/minor/qualifier
> > > version number.
> >
> > AIUI maven and ivy both think that 1.0M1 comes after 1.0
> >
> > (this is also true of many users)
>
> That's not the same thing as can't handle. If 1.0M1 is considered >
> 1.0, then don't have 1.0, but rather 1.0Z or 1.0.0M1 and 1.0.1M1.
IMO it would confusing to call the first full harmony release 1.0Z
IHMO it would be better to avoid this problem by not using that numbering system
> OSGi
> bundles have exactly the same semantics as this and no-one's ever
> complained about that yet.
that's a very categorical statement
i've had plenty of complaints over the years about apache releases
following the above pattern. apache releases are preserved for as long
as the foundation lives. badly named milestones can't simply be
deleted.
typically, the problems happen months or years down the line.
automatic dependency tools or users get confused by the load of 1.x.y
releases most of which were never intended for long term support. if
you're lucky, you just get complaints from users. if you're unlucky
other source projects start depending on releases with subtly
different and incompatible semantics.
- robert
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com>.
On 08/03/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please. Give me one system that can't handle a major/minor/qualifier
> > version number.
>
> AIUI maven and ivy both think that 1.0M1 comes after 1.0
>
> (this is also true of many users)
That's not the same thing as can't handle. If 1.0M1 is considered >
1.0, then don't have 1.0, but rather 1.0Z or 1.0.0M1 and 1.0.1M1. OSGi
bundles have exactly the same semantics as this and no-one's ever
complained about that yet.
Alex.
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 3/8/07, Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/03/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> > >
> > > > We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we don't
> > > > get confused in the future.
> >
> > less confusing (in the long run) and more future proof not to use
> > version monikers
> >
> > the traditional 0.x is a good approach for most open source projects
> > (when pushing towards a 1.0) but IMHO harmony needs milestones and so
> > adopting a 0.x version numbering system wouldn't work very well.
>
> I completely disagree with your views.
there's quite a few points in a short space. which ones do you disagree with?
> > > Please not 1.0M1. Please please please.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > there are lots of reasons not to use versions numbers for this kind of release
> >
> > here's one example: 1.0M1 confuses automatic dependency management systems
>
> Please. Give me one system that can't handle a major/minor/qualifier
> version number.
AIUI maven and ivy both think that 1.0M1 comes after 1.0
(this is also true of many users)
- robert
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com>.
On 08/03/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> >
> > > We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we don't
> > > get confused in the future.
>
> less confusing (in the long run) and more future proof not to use
> version monikers
>
> the traditional 0.x is a good approach for most open source projects
> (when pushing towards a 1.0) but IMHO harmony needs milestones and so
> adopting a 0.x version numbering system wouldn't work very well.
I completely disagree with your views.
> > Please not 1.0M1. Please please please.
>
> +1
>
> there are lots of reasons not to use versions numbers for this kind of release
>
> here's one example: 1.0M1 confuses automatic dependency management systems
Please. Give me one system that can't handle a major/minor/qualifier
version number.
Alex.
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 3/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
>
> > We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we don't
> > get confused in the future.
less confusing (in the long run) and more future proof not to use
version monikers
once harmony hits versioned releases, these milestone train releases
are best forgotten. once they are numbered, releases have a nasty
habit of cropping up later and causing trouble.
the traditional 0.x is a good approach for most open source projects
(when pushing towards a 1.0) but IMHO harmony needs milestones and so
adopting a 0.x version numbering system wouldn't work very well.
>> Apache Harmony 1.0M1 would make sense, or
> > if we want to sync with the proposed Java versioning numbers then
> > Apache Harmony 5.0M1 might make sense.
>
> Please not 1.0M1. Please please please.
+1
there are lots of reasons not to use versions numbers for this kind of release
here's one example: 1.0M1 confuses automatic dependency management systems
(i could go on)
- robert
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we don't
> get confused in the future. Apache Harmony 1.0M1 would make sense, or
> if we want to sync with the proposed Java versioning numbers then
> Apache Harmony 5.0M1 might make sense.
Please not 1.0M1. Please please please.
How about PreM1?
>
> If we are going to release version numbers then is there a plan of
> what the milestones will contain? If we're going to have M1, we should
> explain (roughly) what M2 and M3 will have, to give people an idea of
> where we're going.
Yes, that's the idea.
geir
>
> Alex.
>
> On 08/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
>>
>> > At this stage, are we allowed to use the trademark Java in the name
>> > since we haven't passed the TCK?
>> >
>>
>> Probably not :)
>>
>> But I wasn't suggesting we do that until we get to that point. So
>> for now, we can call it
>>
>>
>> Apache Harmony M1
>>
>> or such...
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> > Alex.
>> >
>> > On 08/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:05 AM, Sian January wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Geir,
>> >> >
>> >> > Just a quick thought about the names. I like the idea of having
>> >> > milestone
>> >> > releases (M1, M2 etc). However if the release is called "Apache
>> >> > Harmony Pre
>> >> > M1" or "Apache Harmony M1", and then we want to use M1, M2
>> etc for
>> >> > future
>> >> > versions like Java 6 and Java 7 how will we tell the difference
>> >> > between the
>> >> > Java 5 M1 release and the Java 6 M1 release?
>> >>
>> >> That's a good question...
>> >>
>> >> I think that once we get out the door, maybe we call it
>> >>
>> >> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >> Apache Harmony Java SE 6 M1
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >> Apache Harmony v5 M1
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >> Apache Harmony v6 M1
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >> I dunno... :)
>> >>
>> >> If you have another idea, go for it :)
>> >>
>> >> I just wanted to give us names to start using for sorting bugs,
>> >> targeting features, and working towards.
>> >>
>> >> geir
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >
>> >> > Sian
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 07/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is a new thread, building on the thread that Mikhail
>> >> started, to
>> >> >> get away from some of the shoals we encountered.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'd like to propose we start a formal release schedule :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * Monthly releases, targeted for the last day of each
>> >> >> month. (IOW, avoid the April 1 release)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * For some set of platforms that we support
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * Regression free (if we support an app or feature in
>> release X,
>> >> >> we support it in X+1 unless we agree in a vote to
>> >> >> regress).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A lot of good things will come from starting down this road :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1) We can start putting together the process to decide on "code
>> >> >> freeze", building and testing, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2) This will allow us to do JIRA triage that is meaningful - we
>> >> can
>> >> >> pre-set the releases in JIRA, and bucket the JIRAs into the
>> >> release
>> >> >> buckets
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 3) We can chart out what we want to do in Wiki (and then
>> >> harvest for
>> >> >> the site) what we hope to accomplish in each release. Up to
>> >> now, the
>> >> >> roadmap was very high-level, and for the most part, we've been
>> >> >> amazingly good at following it (especially considering it was a
>> >> SWAG
>> >> >> done in response to a question I got on a concall once...) I
>> >> would
>> >> >> love to see us chart out the remainder of the API, some sense
>> >> of VM
>> >> >> feature (like "switch to GCv5"), and a set of apps we plan
>> to have
>> >> >> running.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> An important element to this will be naming. I think that as
>> >> we're
>> >> >> just figuring this out, we should avoid date-oriented names
>> (like
>> >> >> "March", "April"...) so we can shift the schedule as need be.
>> >> While
>> >> >> I like the "M1, M2, M3" scheme, I personally utterly detest
>> the
>> >> >> "1.0-
>> >> >> M1" approach, as it ties your hands horribly. I think that we
>> >> should
>> >> >> avoid prefixing a version number for now, and use version
>> numbers
>> >> >> when we get the JCK and can plan out a 0.5, 0.6, 0.7... to 1.0
>> >> train
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So it could be
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Apache Harmony Pre M1
>> >> >> Apache Harmony Pre M2
>> >> >> Apache Harmony Pre M3
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> for now. This is really common and banal. Boring....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We're building on the shoulders of giants here, and I think it
>> >> would
>> >> >> be nice to honor those that came before us. Here's a list of
>> >> great
>> >> >> people in the history of Java who I'd love to honor, as many
>> >> are my
>> >> >> heros :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1) "Hamilton" (Graham, The Enforcer)
>> >> >> 2) "Bloch" (Josh, API hero)
>> >> >> 3) "Gafter" (Neil, API hero)
>> >> >> 4) "Bracha" (Gilad, VM hero)
>> >> >> 5) "Click" (Cliff Click, hotspot hero)
>> >> >> 6) "Gingel" (Rob, Chief Engineer, and guy who grokked OSS)
>> >> >> 7) "Detlefs" (David, GC hero)
>> >> >> 8) "Lindholm" (Tim, VM spec guy)
>> >> >> 9) "Yellin" (Frank, VM spec guy)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thoughts? Comments? Flames?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> geir
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Unless stated otherwise above:
>> >> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
>> with
>> >> > number
>> >> > 741598.
>> >> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
>> Hampshire
>> >> > PO6 3AU
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com>.
We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we don't
get confused in the future. Apache Harmony 1.0M1 would make sense, or
if we want to sync with the proposed Java versioning numbers then
Apache Harmony 5.0M1 might make sense.
If we are going to release version numbers then is there a plan of
what the milestones will contain? If we're going to have M1, we should
explain (roughly) what M2 and M3 will have, to give people an idea of
where we're going.
Alex.
On 08/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
>
> > At this stage, are we allowed to use the trademark Java in the name
> > since we haven't passed the TCK?
> >
>
> Probably not :)
>
> But I wasn't suggesting we do that until we get to that point. So
> for now, we can call it
>
>
> Apache Harmony M1
>
> or such...
>
> geir
>
>
> > Alex.
> >
> > On 08/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:05 AM, Sian January wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Geir,
> >> >
> >> > Just a quick thought about the names. I like the idea of having
> >> > milestone
> >> > releases (M1, M2 etc). However if the release is called "Apache
> >> > Harmony Pre
> >> > M1" or "Apache Harmony M1", and then we want to use M1, M2 etc for
> >> > future
> >> > versions like Java 6 and Java 7 how will we tell the difference
> >> > between the
> >> > Java 5 M1 release and the Java 6 M1 release?
> >>
> >> That's a good question...
> >>
> >> I think that once we get out the door, maybe we call it
> >>
> >> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> Apache Harmony Java SE 6 M1
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> Apache Harmony v5 M1
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> Apache Harmony v6 M1
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> I dunno... :)
> >>
> >> If you have another idea, go for it :)
> >>
> >> I just wanted to give us names to start using for sorting bugs,
> >> targeting features, and working towards.
> >>
> >> geir
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Sian
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 07/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a new thread, building on the thread that Mikhail
> >> started, to
> >> >> get away from some of the shoals we encountered.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd like to propose we start a formal release schedule :
> >> >>
> >> >> * Monthly releases, targeted for the last day of each
> >> >> month. (IOW, avoid the April 1 release)
> >> >>
> >> >> * For some set of platforms that we support
> >> >>
> >> >> * Regression free (if we support an app or feature in release X,
> >> >> we support it in X+1 unless we agree in a vote to
> >> >> regress).
> >> >>
> >> >> A lot of good things will come from starting down this road :
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) We can start putting together the process to decide on "code
> >> >> freeze", building and testing, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2) This will allow us to do JIRA triage that is meaningful - we
> >> can
> >> >> pre-set the releases in JIRA, and bucket the JIRAs into the
> >> release
> >> >> buckets
> >> >>
> >> >> 3) We can chart out what we want to do in Wiki (and then
> >> harvest for
> >> >> the site) what we hope to accomplish in each release. Up to
> >> now, the
> >> >> roadmap was very high-level, and for the most part, we've been
> >> >> amazingly good at following it (especially considering it was a
> >> SWAG
> >> >> done in response to a question I got on a concall once...) I
> >> would
> >> >> love to see us chart out the remainder of the API, some sense
> >> of VM
> >> >> feature (like "switch to GCv5"), and a set of apps we plan to have
> >> >> running.
> >> >>
> >> >> An important element to this will be naming. I think that as
> >> we're
> >> >> just figuring this out, we should avoid date-oriented names (like
> >> >> "March", "April"...) so we can shift the schedule as need be.
> >> While
> >> >> I like the "M1, M2, M3" scheme, I personally utterly detest the
> >> >> "1.0-
> >> >> M1" approach, as it ties your hands horribly. I think that we
> >> should
> >> >> avoid prefixing a version number for now, and use version numbers
> >> >> when we get the JCK and can plan out a 0.5, 0.6, 0.7... to 1.0
> >> train
> >> >>
> >> >> So it could be
> >> >>
> >> >> Apache Harmony Pre M1
> >> >> Apache Harmony Pre M2
> >> >> Apache Harmony Pre M3
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> for now. This is really common and banal. Boring....
> >> >>
> >> >> We're building on the shoulders of giants here, and I think it
> >> would
> >> >> be nice to honor those that came before us. Here's a list of
> >> great
> >> >> people in the history of Java who I'd love to honor, as many
> >> are my
> >> >> heros :
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) "Hamilton" (Graham, The Enforcer)
> >> >> 2) "Bloch" (Josh, API hero)
> >> >> 3) "Gafter" (Neil, API hero)
> >> >> 4) "Bracha" (Gilad, VM hero)
> >> >> 5) "Click" (Cliff Click, hotspot hero)
> >> >> 6) "Gingel" (Rob, Chief Engineer, and guy who grokked OSS)
> >> >> 7) "Detlefs" (David, GC hero)
> >> >> 8) "Lindholm" (Tim, VM spec guy)
> >> >> 9) "Yellin" (Frank, VM spec guy)
> >> >>
> >> >> Thoughts? Comments? Flames?
> >> >>
> >> >> geir
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> >> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> >> > number
> >> > 741598.
> >> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
> >> > PO6 3AU
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Mar 8, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> At this stage, are we allowed to use the trademark Java in the name
> since we haven't passed the TCK?
>
Probably not :)
But I wasn't suggesting we do that until we get to that point. So
for now, we can call it
Apache Harmony M1
or such...
geir
> Alex.
>
> On 08/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:05 AM, Sian January wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Geir,
>> >
>> > Just a quick thought about the names. I like the idea of having
>> > milestone
>> > releases (M1, M2 etc). However if the release is called "Apache
>> > Harmony Pre
>> > M1" or "Apache Harmony M1", and then we want to use M1, M2 etc for
>> > future
>> > versions like Java 6 and Java 7 how will we tell the difference
>> > between the
>> > Java 5 M1 release and the Java 6 M1 release?
>>
>> That's a good question...
>>
>> I think that once we get out the door, maybe we call it
>>
>> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1
>>
>> or
>>
>> Apache Harmony Java SE 6 M1
>>
>> or
>>
>> Apache Harmony v5 M1
>>
>> or
>>
>> Apache Harmony v6 M1
>>
>> or
>>
>> I dunno... :)
>>
>> If you have another idea, go for it :)
>>
>> I just wanted to give us names to start using for sorting bugs,
>> targeting features, and working towards.
>>
>> geir
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Sian
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 07/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This is a new thread, building on the thread that Mikhail
>> started, to
>> >> get away from some of the shoals we encountered.
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to propose we start a formal release schedule :
>> >>
>> >> * Monthly releases, targeted for the last day of each
>> >> month. (IOW, avoid the April 1 release)
>> >>
>> >> * For some set of platforms that we support
>> >>
>> >> * Regression free (if we support an app or feature in release X,
>> >> we support it in X+1 unless we agree in a vote to
>> >> regress).
>> >>
>> >> A lot of good things will come from starting down this road :
>> >>
>> >> 1) We can start putting together the process to decide on "code
>> >> freeze", building and testing, etc.
>> >>
>> >> 2) This will allow us to do JIRA triage that is meaningful - we
>> can
>> >> pre-set the releases in JIRA, and bucket the JIRAs into the
>> release
>> >> buckets
>> >>
>> >> 3) We can chart out what we want to do in Wiki (and then
>> harvest for
>> >> the site) what we hope to accomplish in each release. Up to
>> now, the
>> >> roadmap was very high-level, and for the most part, we've been
>> >> amazingly good at following it (especially considering it was a
>> SWAG
>> >> done in response to a question I got on a concall once...) I
>> would
>> >> love to see us chart out the remainder of the API, some sense
>> of VM
>> >> feature (like "switch to GCv5"), and a set of apps we plan to have
>> >> running.
>> >>
>> >> An important element to this will be naming. I think that as
>> we're
>> >> just figuring this out, we should avoid date-oriented names (like
>> >> "March", "April"...) so we can shift the schedule as need be.
>> While
>> >> I like the "M1, M2, M3" scheme, I personally utterly detest the
>> >> "1.0-
>> >> M1" approach, as it ties your hands horribly. I think that we
>> should
>> >> avoid prefixing a version number for now, and use version numbers
>> >> when we get the JCK and can plan out a 0.5, 0.6, 0.7... to 1.0
>> train
>> >>
>> >> So it could be
>> >>
>> >> Apache Harmony Pre M1
>> >> Apache Harmony Pre M2
>> >> Apache Harmony Pre M3
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> for now. This is really common and banal. Boring....
>> >>
>> >> We're building on the shoulders of giants here, and I think it
>> would
>> >> be nice to honor those that came before us. Here's a list of
>> great
>> >> people in the history of Java who I'd love to honor, as many
>> are my
>> >> heros :
>> >>
>> >> 1) "Hamilton" (Graham, The Enforcer)
>> >> 2) "Bloch" (Josh, API hero)
>> >> 3) "Gafter" (Neil, API hero)
>> >> 4) "Bracha" (Gilad, VM hero)
>> >> 5) "Click" (Cliff Click, hotspot hero)
>> >> 6) "Gingel" (Rob, Chief Engineer, and guy who grokked OSS)
>> >> 7) "Detlefs" (David, GC hero)
>> >> 8) "Lindholm" (Tim, VM spec guy)
>> >> 9) "Yellin" (Frank, VM spec guy)
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts? Comments? Flames?
>> >>
>> >> geir
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Unless stated otherwise above:
>> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>> > number
>> > 741598.
>> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>> > PO6 3AU
>>
>>
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by Alex Blewitt <al...@gmail.com>.
At this stage, are we allowed to use the trademark Java in the name
since we haven't passed the TCK?
Alex.
On 08/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:05 AM, Sian January wrote:
>
> > Hi Geir,
> >
> > Just a quick thought about the names. I like the idea of having
> > milestone
> > releases (M1, M2 etc). However if the release is called "Apache
> > Harmony Pre
> > M1" or "Apache Harmony M1", and then we want to use M1, M2 etc for
> > future
> > versions like Java 6 and Java 7 how will we tell the difference
> > between the
> > Java 5 M1 release and the Java 6 M1 release?
>
> That's a good question...
>
> I think that once we get out the door, maybe we call it
>
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1
>
> or
>
> Apache Harmony Java SE 6 M1
>
> or
>
> Apache Harmony v5 M1
>
> or
>
> Apache Harmony v6 M1
>
> or
>
> I dunno... :)
>
> If you have another idea, go for it :)
>
> I just wanted to give us names to start using for sorting bugs,
> targeting features, and working towards.
>
> geir
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sian
> >
> >
> >
> > On 07/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is a new thread, building on the thread that Mikhail started, to
> >> get away from some of the shoals we encountered.
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose we start a formal release schedule :
> >>
> >> * Monthly releases, targeted for the last day of each
> >> month. (IOW, avoid the April 1 release)
> >>
> >> * For some set of platforms that we support
> >>
> >> * Regression free (if we support an app or feature in release X,
> >> we support it in X+1 unless we agree in a vote to
> >> regress).
> >>
> >> A lot of good things will come from starting down this road :
> >>
> >> 1) We can start putting together the process to decide on "code
> >> freeze", building and testing, etc.
> >>
> >> 2) This will allow us to do JIRA triage that is meaningful - we can
> >> pre-set the releases in JIRA, and bucket the JIRAs into the release
> >> buckets
> >>
> >> 3) We can chart out what we want to do in Wiki (and then harvest for
> >> the site) what we hope to accomplish in each release. Up to now, the
> >> roadmap was very high-level, and for the most part, we've been
> >> amazingly good at following it (especially considering it was a SWAG
> >> done in response to a question I got on a concall once...) I would
> >> love to see us chart out the remainder of the API, some sense of VM
> >> feature (like "switch to GCv5"), and a set of apps we plan to have
> >> running.
> >>
> >> An important element to this will be naming. I think that as we're
> >> just figuring this out, we should avoid date-oriented names (like
> >> "March", "April"...) so we can shift the schedule as need be. While
> >> I like the "M1, M2, M3" scheme, I personally utterly detest the
> >> "1.0-
> >> M1" approach, as it ties your hands horribly. I think that we should
> >> avoid prefixing a version number for now, and use version numbers
> >> when we get the JCK and can plan out a 0.5, 0.6, 0.7... to 1.0 train
> >>
> >> So it could be
> >>
> >> Apache Harmony Pre M1
> >> Apache Harmony Pre M2
> >> Apache Harmony Pre M3
> >> ...
> >>
> >> for now. This is really common and banal. Boring....
> >>
> >> We're building on the shoulders of giants here, and I think it would
> >> be nice to honor those that came before us. Here's a list of great
> >> people in the history of Java who I'd love to honor, as many are my
> >> heros :
> >>
> >> 1) "Hamilton" (Graham, The Enforcer)
> >> 2) "Bloch" (Josh, API hero)
> >> 3) "Gafter" (Neil, API hero)
> >> 4) "Bracha" (Gilad, VM hero)
> >> 5) "Click" (Cliff Click, hotspot hero)
> >> 6) "Gingel" (Rob, Chief Engineer, and guy who grokked OSS)
> >> 7) "Detlefs" (David, GC hero)
> >> 8) "Lindholm" (Tim, VM spec guy)
> >> 9) "Yellin" (Frank, VM spec guy)
> >>
> >> Thoughts? Comments? Flames?
> >>
> >> geir
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> > number
> > 741598.
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
> > PO6 3AU
>
>
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:05 AM, Sian January wrote:
> Hi Geir,
>
> Just a quick thought about the names. I like the idea of having
> milestone
> releases (M1, M2 etc). However if the release is called "Apache
> Harmony Pre
> M1" or "Apache Harmony M1", and then we want to use M1, M2 etc for
> future
> versions like Java 6 and Java 7 how will we tell the difference
> between the
> Java 5 M1 release and the Java 6 M1 release?
That's a good question...
I think that once we get out the door, maybe we call it
Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1
or
Apache Harmony Java SE 6 M1
or
Apache Harmony v5 M1
or
Apache Harmony v6 M1
or
I dunno... :)
If you have another idea, go for it :)
I just wanted to give us names to start using for sorting bugs,
targeting features, and working towards.
geir
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sian
>
>
>
> On 07/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is a new thread, building on the thread that Mikhail started, to
>> get away from some of the shoals we encountered.
>>
>> I'd like to propose we start a formal release schedule :
>>
>> * Monthly releases, targeted for the last day of each
>> month. (IOW, avoid the April 1 release)
>>
>> * For some set of platforms that we support
>>
>> * Regression free (if we support an app or feature in release X,
>> we support it in X+1 unless we agree in a vote to
>> regress).
>>
>> A lot of good things will come from starting down this road :
>>
>> 1) We can start putting together the process to decide on "code
>> freeze", building and testing, etc.
>>
>> 2) This will allow us to do JIRA triage that is meaningful - we can
>> pre-set the releases in JIRA, and bucket the JIRAs into the release
>> buckets
>>
>> 3) We can chart out what we want to do in Wiki (and then harvest for
>> the site) what we hope to accomplish in each release. Up to now, the
>> roadmap was very high-level, and for the most part, we've been
>> amazingly good at following it (especially considering it was a SWAG
>> done in response to a question I got on a concall once...) I would
>> love to see us chart out the remainder of the API, some sense of VM
>> feature (like "switch to GCv5"), and a set of apps we plan to have
>> running.
>>
>> An important element to this will be naming. I think that as we're
>> just figuring this out, we should avoid date-oriented names (like
>> "March", "April"...) so we can shift the schedule as need be. While
>> I like the "M1, M2, M3" scheme, I personally utterly detest the
>> "1.0-
>> M1" approach, as it ties your hands horribly. I think that we should
>> avoid prefixing a version number for now, and use version numbers
>> when we get the JCK and can plan out a 0.5, 0.6, 0.7... to 1.0 train
>>
>> So it could be
>>
>> Apache Harmony Pre M1
>> Apache Harmony Pre M2
>> Apache Harmony Pre M3
>> ...
>>
>> for now. This is really common and banal. Boring....
>>
>> We're building on the shoulders of giants here, and I think it would
>> be nice to honor those that came before us. Here's a list of great
>> people in the history of Java who I'd love to honor, as many are my
>> heros :
>>
>> 1) "Hamilton" (Graham, The Enforcer)
>> 2) "Bloch" (Josh, API hero)
>> 3) "Gafter" (Neil, API hero)
>> 4) "Bracha" (Gilad, VM hero)
>> 5) "Click" (Cliff Click, hotspot hero)
>> 6) "Gingel" (Rob, Chief Engineer, and guy who grokked OSS)
>> 7) "Detlefs" (David, GC hero)
>> 8) "Lindholm" (Tim, VM spec guy)
>> 9) "Yellin" (Frank, VM spec guy)
>>
>> Thoughts? Comments? Flames?
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
> PO6 3AU
Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Posted by Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Geir,
Just a quick thought about the names. I like the idea of having milestone
releases (M1, M2 etc). However if the release is called "Apache Harmony Pre
M1" or "Apache Harmony M1", and then we want to use M1, M2 etc for future
versions like Java 6 and Java 7 how will we tell the difference between the
Java 5 M1 release and the Java 6 M1 release?
Thanks,
Sian
On 07/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> This is a new thread, building on the thread that Mikhail started, to
> get away from some of the shoals we encountered.
>
> I'd like to propose we start a formal release schedule :
>
> * Monthly releases, targeted for the last day of each
> month. (IOW, avoid the April 1 release)
>
> * For some set of platforms that we support
>
> * Regression free (if we support an app or feature in release X,
> we support it in X+1 unless we agree in a vote to
> regress).
>
> A lot of good things will come from starting down this road :
>
> 1) We can start putting together the process to decide on "code
> freeze", building and testing, etc.
>
> 2) This will allow us to do JIRA triage that is meaningful - we can
> pre-set the releases in JIRA, and bucket the JIRAs into the release
> buckets
>
> 3) We can chart out what we want to do in Wiki (and then harvest for
> the site) what we hope to accomplish in each release. Up to now, the
> roadmap was very high-level, and for the most part, we've been
> amazingly good at following it (especially considering it was a SWAG
> done in response to a question I got on a concall once...) I would
> love to see us chart out the remainder of the API, some sense of VM
> feature (like "switch to GCv5"), and a set of apps we plan to have
> running.
>
> An important element to this will be naming. I think that as we're
> just figuring this out, we should avoid date-oriented names (like
> "March", "April"...) so we can shift the schedule as need be. While
> I like the "M1, M2, M3" scheme, I personally utterly detest the "1.0-
> M1" approach, as it ties your hands horribly. I think that we should
> avoid prefixing a version number for now, and use version numbers
> when we get the JCK and can plan out a 0.5, 0.6, 0.7... to 1.0 train
>
> So it could be
>
> Apache Harmony Pre M1
> Apache Harmony Pre M2
> Apache Harmony Pre M3
> ...
>
> for now. This is really common and banal. Boring....
>
> We're building on the shoulders of giants here, and I think it would
> be nice to honor those that came before us. Here's a list of great
> people in the history of Java who I'd love to honor, as many are my
> heros :
>
> 1) "Hamilton" (Graham, The Enforcer)
> 2) "Bloch" (Josh, API hero)
> 3) "Gafter" (Neil, API hero)
> 4) "Bracha" (Gilad, VM hero)
> 5) "Click" (Cliff Click, hotspot hero)
> 6) "Gingel" (Rob, Chief Engineer, and guy who grokked OSS)
> 7) "Detlefs" (David, GC hero)
> 8) "Lindholm" (Tim, VM spec guy)
> 9) "Yellin" (Frank, VM spec guy)
>
> Thoughts? Comments? Flames?
>
> geir
>
>
>
>
--
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU