You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by ant elder <an...@gmail.com> on 2007/04/24 12:53:39 UTC
Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
What are we going to be calling this next SCA release?
We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are talking
about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was some
discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha release
names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound
unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking about
making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are
becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me.
So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could try
to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming?
Any comments or alternative name suggestions?
...ant
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Both of these seem like useful suggestions. There's a scheduled IRC next
Monday so lets discuss the release contents at that, in the meantime people
could add their names to wiki items [1] for things that they want to get
into the next release.
...ant
[1]
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents
On 4/25/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A working release that is closer to 1.0 spec version sooner would be
> better
> than having more content and a later release. M2 is old now and has
> issues.
>
> Should IRC be used for a discussion on release or maybe we should
> update
> the Wiki page with (IN/Out) comment to help you? If an item has both IN
> and
> OUT, discussion can resolve it.
>
> Would it help if we put our name next to the idea that each of us are
> driving?
> I sign up for wiki and driving the documentation layout and some of the
> content like user guide.
>
>
> On 4/25/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/25/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > ant elder wrote:
> > > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip/>
> > > >
> > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
> > > >> something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
> > > >> "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta"
> level
> > > >> of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions
> > > > as to
> > > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this?
> Should
> > > we:
> > > >
> > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
> > > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
> > > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a
> > non-"beta"
> > > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
> > > >
> > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd
> like
> > > to
> > > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
> > > >
> > > > ...ant
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think it would be good to "Release early, release often" :) and have
> a
> > > release around JavaOne for people to try our SCA 1.0 APIs and assembly
> > > support as well as our new SPIs, and after that have more frequent
> > > releases than we did in in the past, like a release every two months
> > > maybe, with smaller increments each time.
> > >
> > > I'm for a variation of your option (3)... refine the contents of the
> > > release first, then decide to call it alpha/beta/gamma/whatever based
> on
> > > what we've been able to put in that release.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > I've started a wiki page to track the next release contents:
> >
> >
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents
> > .
> > Very rough to start with - I've just tried to note all the things that
> > have
> > been suggested on the mailing list that we should put in the next
> release
> > (sorry if i've missed something, please just add it).
> >
> > JavaOne is just 8 working days away so to make a release by then, or
> even
> > just a release candidate, there is a lot to do if we want to finish
> > everything on that wiki page. What is the absolute minimum we should
> > include? What are must do's for you before I can tag or branch SVN for
> the
> > release? What on that list do you think we could leave out?
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com>.
A working release that is closer to 1.0 spec version sooner would be better
than having more content and a later release. M2 is old now and has
issues.
Should IRC be used for a discussion on release or maybe we should update
the Wiki page with (IN/Out) comment to help you? If an item has both IN and
OUT, discussion can resolve it.
Would it help if we put our name next to the idea that each of us are
driving?
I sign up for wiki and driving the documentation layout and some of the
content like user guide.
On 4/25/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/25/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > ant elder wrote:
> > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip/>
> > >
> > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
> > >> something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
> > >> "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level
> > >> of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions
> > > as to
> > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should
> > we:
> > >
> > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
> > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
> > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a
> non-"beta"
> > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
> > >
> > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like
> > to
> > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> >
> > I think it would be good to "Release early, release often" :) and have a
> > release around JavaOne for people to try our SCA 1.0 APIs and assembly
> > support as well as our new SPIs, and after that have more frequent
> > releases than we did in in the past, like a release every two months
> > maybe, with smaller increments each time.
> >
> > I'm for a variation of your option (3)... refine the contents of the
> > release first, then decide to call it alpha/beta/gamma/whatever based on
> > what we've been able to put in that release.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>
> I've started a wiki page to track the next release contents:
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents
> .
> Very rough to start with - I've just tried to note all the things that
> have
> been suggested on the mailing list that we should put in the next release
> (sorry if i've missed something, please just add it).
>
> JavaOne is just 8 working days away so to make a release by then, or even
> just a release candidate, there is a lot to do if we want to finish
> everything on that wiki page. What is the absolute minimum we should
> include? What are must do's for you before I can tag or branch SVN for the
> release? What on that list do you think we could leave out?
>
> ...ant
>
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 4/25/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> ant elder wrote:
> > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip/>
> >
> > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
> >> something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
> >> "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level
> >> of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
> >
> >
> > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions
> > as to
> > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should
> we:
> >
> > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
> > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
> > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta"
> > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
> >
> > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like
> to
> > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> I think it would be good to "Release early, release often" :) and have a
> release around JavaOne for people to try our SCA 1.0 APIs and assembly
> support as well as our new SPIs, and after that have more frequent
> releases than we did in in the past, like a release every two months
> maybe, with smaller increments each time.
>
> I'm for a variation of your option (3)... refine the contents of the
> release first, then decide to call it alpha/beta/gamma/whatever based on
> what we've been able to put in that release.
>
> Thoughts?
I've started a wiki page to track the next release contents:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents.
Very rough to start with - I've just tried to note all the things that have
been suggested on the mailing list that we should put in the next release
(sorry if i've missed something, please just add it).
JavaOne is just 8 working days away so to make a release by then, or even
just a release candidate, there is a lot to do if we want to finish
everything on that wiki page. What is the absolute minimum we should
include? What are must do's for you before I can tag or branch SVN for the
release? What on that list do you think we could leave out?
...ant
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 4/25/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> ant elder wrote:
> > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip/>
> >
> > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
> >> something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
> >> "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level
> >> of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
> >
> >
> > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions
> > as to
> > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should
> we:
> >
> > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
> > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
> > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta"
> > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
> >
> > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like
> to
> > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> I think it would be good to "Release early, release often" :) and have a
> release around JavaOne for people to try our SCA 1.0 APIs and assembly
> support as well as our new SPIs, and after that have more frequent
> releases than we did in in the past, like a release every two months
> maybe, with smaller increments each time.
>
> I'm for a variation of your option (3)... refine the contents of the
> release first, then decide to call it alpha/beta/gamma/whatever based on
> what we've been able to put in that release.
Ok, is there anything on the list in the wiki [1] that we think either (a)
must be in the next release or (b) need not be in the next release?
The main things I think are in the (a) "must have" category is "define a
clear set of runtime and extension APIs", and unless we're happy with just a
source distribution also "decide on distributions, create build scripts". If
all we want to do is get a release out quickly then maybe everything else
could be slipped to the release after next.
One problem is i don't think we can define a clear and stable extension API
without having a few extensions working using it so we probably also need to
get a few implementation and binding types working using the extension API
(eg java, script, axis2 and rmi?). I guess we don't actually have to release
those extensions in the next release though.
...ant
[1]
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should
be in it)
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
ant elder wrote:
> On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
> So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
>> something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
>> "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level
>> of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
>
>
> I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions
> as to
> what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should we:
>
> 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
> 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
> 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta"
> release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
>
> I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like to
> get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
>
> ...ant
>
I think it would be good to "Release early, release often" :) and have a
release around JavaOne for people to try our SCA 1.0 APIs and assembly
support as well as our new SPIs, and after that have more frequent
releases than we did in in the past, like a release every two months
maybe, with smaller increments each time.
I'm for a variation of your option (3)... refine the contents of the
release first, then decide to call it alpha/beta/gamma/whatever based on
what we've been able to put in that release.
Thoughts?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On 5/2/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> I thought Ant's suggestion was just 0.90 and not beta anything. I can
> live with this. I don't think we are ready yet to call it beta 1.0
> or beta1 1.0.
>
> Simon
>
> haleh mahbod wrote:
>
> > why does it matter if we call it beta1 or beta .90? It is a variation of
> > what we call beta. The fact that there is a number after Beta is an
> > indication that there might be revisions of Beta anyway before 1.0release
> > is reached.
> >
> >
> > On 5/2/07, Ignacio Silva-Lepe <is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> +1 on 0.90
> >>
> >> On 5/2/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all
> >> the
> >> > readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on
> >> beta1
> >> > so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and
> still
> >> > gives space for more releases before the final 1.0.
> >> >
> >> > ...ant
> >> >
> >> > On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <al...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting
> >> > > mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon
> in
> >> > > that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all
> >> > > would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we
> >> can,
> >> > > but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne.
> >> > > What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more
> manageable
> >> > > code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken,
> >> > > than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3,
> >> > > with a name of M3 or maybe alpha.
> >> > >
> >> > > -Bert
> >> > >
> >> > > On 4/25/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > <snip/>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
> >> > > > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to
> >> call it
> >> > > > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta"
> >> > level
> >> > > > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different
> >> perceptions
> >> > as
> >> > > to
> >> > > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this?
> >> Should
> >> > > we:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
> >> > > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
> >> > > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a
> >> > non-"beta"
> >> > > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd
> >> like
> >> > > to
> >> > > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne
> anyway.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ...ant
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > 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
>
> +1 to using 0.90 (over reverting to M3 say). After this is done we should
take the time discuss here what everyone thinks the gap is between what we
have and what a beta would contain.
Simon
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should
be in it)
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
I thought Ant's suggestion was just 0.90 and not beta anything. I can
live with this. I don't think we are ready yet to call it beta 1.0
or beta1 1.0.
Simon
haleh mahbod wrote:
> why does it matter if we call it beta1 or beta .90? It is a variation of
> what we call beta. The fact that there is a number after Beta is an
> indication that there might be revisions of Beta anyway before 1.0 release
> is reached.
>
>
> On 5/2/07, Ignacio Silva-Lepe <is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> +1 on 0.90
>>
>> On 5/2/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all
>> the
>> > readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on
>> beta1
>> > so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still
>> > gives space for more releases before the final 1.0.
>> >
>> > ...ant
>> >
>> > On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <al...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting
>> > > mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in
>> > > that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all
>> > > would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we
>> can,
>> > > but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne.
>> > > What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable
>> > > code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken,
>> > > than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3,
>> > > with a name of M3 or maybe alpha.
>> > >
>> > > -Bert
>> > >
>> > > On 4/25/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > <snip/>
>> > > >
>> > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
>> > > > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to
>> call it
>> > > > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta"
>> > level
>> > > > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different
>> perceptions
>> > as
>> > > to
>> > > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this?
>> Should
>> > > we:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
>> > > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
>> > > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a
>> > non-"beta"
>> > > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
>> > > >
>> > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd
>> like
>> > > to
>> > > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
>> > > >
>> > > > ...ant
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > 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: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com>.
why does it matter if we call it beta1 or beta .90? It is a variation of
what we call beta. The fact that there is a number after Beta is an
indication that there might be revisions of Beta anyway before 1.0 release
is reached.
On 5/2/07, Ignacio Silva-Lepe <is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 on 0.90
>
> On 5/2/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all
> the
> > readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on
> beta1
> > so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still
> > gives space for more releases before the final 1.0.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> > On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <al...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting
> > > mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in
> > > that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all
> > > would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can,
> > > but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne.
> > > What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable
> > > code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken,
> > > than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3,
> > > with a name of M3 or maybe alpha.
> > >
> > > -Bert
> > >
> > > On 4/25/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip/>
> > > >
> > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
> > > > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
> > > > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta"
> > level
> > > > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions
> > as
> > > to
> > > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this?
> Should
> > > we:
> > > >
> > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
> > > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
> > > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a
> > non-"beta"
> > > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
> > > >
> > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd
> like
> > > to
> > > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
> > > >
> > > > ...ant
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by Ignacio Silva-Lepe <is...@gmail.com>.
+1 on 0.90
On 5/2/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all the
> readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on beta1
> so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still
> gives space for more releases before the final 1.0.
>
> ...ant
>
> On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <al...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting
> > mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in
> > that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all
> > would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can,
> > but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne.
> > What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable
> > code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken,
> > than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3,
> > with a name of M3 or maybe alpha.
> >
> > -Bert
> >
> > On 4/25/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip/>
> > >
> > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
> > > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
> > > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta"
> level
> > > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions
> as
> > to
> > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should
> > we:
> > >
> > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
> > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
> > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a
> non-"beta"
> > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
> > >
> > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like
> > to
> > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Ok, I've started to use 0.90 for the name for now. Can easily change it if
something better comes up.
...ant
On 5/3/07, Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 for 0.90
>
> - Venkat
>
> On 5/2/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all
> the
> > readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on
> beta1
> > so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still
> > gives space for more releases before the final 1.0.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> > On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <al...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting
> > > mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in
> > > that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all
> > > would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can,
> > > but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne.
> > > What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable
> > > code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken,
> > > than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3,
> > > with a name of M3 or maybe alpha.
> > >
> > > -Bert
> > >
> > > On 4/25/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip/>
> > > >
> > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
> > > > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
> > > > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta"
> > level
> > > > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions
> > as
> > > to
> > > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this?
> Should
> > > we:
> > > >
> > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
> > > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
> > > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a
> > non-"beta"
> > > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
> > > >
> > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd
> like
> > > to
> > > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
> > > >
> > > > ...ant
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 0.90
- Venkat
On 5/2/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all the
> readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on beta1
> so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still
> gives space for more releases before the final 1.0.
>
> ...ant
>
> On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <al...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting
> > mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in
> > that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all
> > would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can,
> > but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne.
> > What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable
> > code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken,
> > than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3,
> > with a name of M3 or maybe alpha.
> >
> > -Bert
> >
> > On 4/25/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip/>
> > >
> > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
> > > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
> > > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta"
> level
> > > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions
> as
> > to
> > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should
> > we:
> > >
> > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
> > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
> > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a
> non-"beta"
> > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
> > >
> > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like
> > to
> > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all the
readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on beta1
so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still
gives space for more releases before the final 1.0.
...ant
On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <al...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting
> mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in
> that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all
> would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can,
> but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne.
> What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable
> code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken,
> than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3,
> with a name of M3 or maybe alpha.
>
> -Bert
>
> On 4/25/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip/>
> >
> > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
> > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
> > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level
> > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
> >
> >
> > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions as
> to
> > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should
> we:
> >
> > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
> > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
> > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta"
> > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
> >
> > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like
> to
> > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by Bert Lamb <al...@pobox.com>.
I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting
mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in
that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all
would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can,
but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne.
What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable
code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken,
than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3,
with a name of M3 or maybe alpha.
-Bert
On 4/25/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
> So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
> > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
> > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level
> > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
>
>
> I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions as to
> what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should we:
>
> 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
> 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
> 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta"
> release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
>
> I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like to
> get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
>
> ...ant
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
<snip/>
So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
> something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
> "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level
> of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions as to
what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should we:
1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta"
release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like to
get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
...ant
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should
be in it)
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
I agree that beta1 sounds good and will encourage people to try
Tuscany because it seems like a stable release (more so than our
previous releases and attempted releases). And in terms of SCA
spec APIs, I think we are pretty much at beta level currently.
I would also regard the SDO implementation and APIs as being at
beta level.
However... I have some concerns about whether we can truly describe
our current SCA implementation as being at beta level. If we are
going to put "beta" on the outside of the box, then we had better make
sure that "beta" code is inside the box as well. In the last few
weeks we have been through very significant changes in the codebase.
The progress has been remarkable, and the changes have been very
positive, but there are still a few loose bits hanging out. One
example of this is the lifecycle issues that I raised a few days ago.
Another is the problems that people are currently having with
Tomcat and Web Services. So I don't think what we have today is
quite at the level of stability, completeness and quality that truly
justifies a "beta" designation, and realistically I am not sure that
we will be able to get the code to that point in the next week and
be able to put out a "beta quality" release by JavaOne.
So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
"beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level
of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
Simon
Raymond Feng wrote:
> +1.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luciano Resende" <lu...@gmail.com>
> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What
> should be in it)
>
>
>> +1
>>
>> As for DAS, as it has dependencies on SDO, I'd propose to follow the same
>> name convention as SDO, and use beta1 as well.
>>
>> On 4/24/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ant elder wrote:
>>> > What are we going to be calling this next SCA release?
>>> >
>>> > We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are
>>> talking
>>> > about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was
>>> > some
>>> > discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha
>>> > release
>>> > names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound
>>> > unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking
>>> > about
>>> > making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are
>>> > becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me.
>>> >
>>> > So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could
>>> > try
>>> > to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming?
>>> >
>>> > Any comments or alternative name suggestions?
>>> >
>>> > ...ant
>>> >
>>>
>>> Good idea, beta1 makes sense to me as APIs and SPIs are getting stable,
>>> as is our support for the SCA assembly XML described in the SCA 1.0
>>> spec.
>>>
>>> +1 from me.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Sebastien
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
+1.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Luciano Resende" <lu...@gmail.com>
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What
should be in it)
> +1
>
> As for DAS, as it has dependencies on SDO, I'd propose to follow the same
> name convention as SDO, and use beta1 as well.
>
> On 4/24/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> ant elder wrote:
>> > What are we going to be calling this next SCA release?
>> >
>> > We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are
>> talking
>> > about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was
>> > some
>> > discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha
>> > release
>> > names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound
>> > unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking
>> > about
>> > making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are
>> > becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me.
>> >
>> > So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could
>> > try
>> > to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming?
>> >
>> > Any comments or alternative name suggestions?
>> >
>> > ...ant
>> >
>>
>> Good idea, beta1 makes sense to me as APIs and SPIs are getting stable,
>> as is our support for the SCA assembly XML described in the SCA 1.0 spec.
>>
>> +1 from me.
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Sebastien
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
+1
As for DAS, as it has dependencies on SDO, I'd propose to follow the same
name convention as SDO, and use beta1 as well.
On 4/24/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> ant elder wrote:
> > What are we going to be calling this next SCA release?
> >
> > We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are
> talking
> > about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was
> > some
> > discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha
> > release
> > names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound
> > unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking
> > about
> > making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are
> > becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me.
> >
> > So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could
> > try
> > to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming?
> >
> > Any comments or alternative name suggestions?
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> Good idea, beta1 makes sense to me as APIs and SPIs are getting stable,
> as is our support for the SCA assembly XML described in the SCA 1.0 spec.
>
> +1 from me.
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should
be in it)
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
ant elder wrote:
> What are we going to be calling this next SCA release?
>
> We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are talking
> about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was
> some
> discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha
> release
> names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound
> unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking
> about
> making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are
> becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me.
>
> So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could
> try
> to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming?
>
> Any comments or alternative name suggestions?
>
> ...ant
>
Good idea, beta1 makes sense to me as APIs and SPIs are getting stable,
as is our support for the SCA assembly XML described in the SCA 1.0 spec.
+1 from me.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On 4/24/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ant,
> your note is well timed as I've had a couple of off-line chats with
> people
> in the last week about release naming, particularly with regard to the
> effect that a milestone or alpha name can have on uptake of a release. In
> the IRC chat of 16th April [1] we reached a conclusion that given the fact
> that a new release candidate had just been posted for consideration, we
> would leave naming as it was. However, I got the impression that in
> general
> the community was giving me an implicit +0 vote to retaining the M3
> release
> tag, but the ideal would be to move to a beta1 tag. At the time there was
> a
> handful of small SDO 2.1 spec features for which we didn't have a first
> cut
> implementation. Now this has reduced to just a couple, and it seemed
> that
> there was consensus from the discussion that a beta* tag was not
> incompatible with this state, so long as the omissions were documented.
>
> The SDO RC3 has been available for a little while for comment, but has
> not
> received much attention. I have a couple of small non-blocking issues
> with
> the candidate that I have spotted that I would like to tidy up. So I
> propose that I quickly cut a new 1.0-incubating-beta1 tag from the M3 tag,
> make my small fixes (including adopting the incubating name convention
> over
> the previous incubator convention) post a new candidate and start a vote
> on
> that candidate. I'd like to do this ASAP and I don't think this is
> contentious, but I guess I need to give a little time for reaction before
> proceeding, as my actions would not be in accordance with the outcome
> community discussions; I propose to do this at start of UK business
> tomorrow.
>
> Kelvin
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16772.html
>
> On 24/04/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What are we going to be calling this next SCA release?
> >
> > We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are
> talking
> > about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was
> some
> > discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha
> > release
> > names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound
> > unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking
> about
> > making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are
> > becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me.
> >
> > So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could
> try
> > to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming?
> >
> > Any comments or alternative name suggestions?
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
Ant
This is an interesting idea. I think going to beta1 will better describe the
type of release I (we) would like to see. I think though that this does
underline our need to get the supporting material e.g. samples, docs etc. up
to the level we would expect of a beta release. This is not a surprise, it's
been discussed on the release content thread and elsewhere but I think a
naming proposition like this can help focus the mind (separate thread
required to get all this stuff sorted)
So are you suggesting we go to 1.0-incubating-beta1 as Kelvin suggested.
Are there any modules that would be part of a beta release but would not be
named this way?I don't have anything in mind just asking.
Are there modules that we have in the build that we would choose to leave
out if we call it a beta release?
Simon
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk>.
Ant,
thanks for the pointers here. I am persisting with this, but I thought
I'd just post an update as this doesn't seem to be working as it should. I
have two main problems, one is when attempting to deploy the SDO tools jar
by command -- see [1], the maven command removes the pom i'm trying to
deploy in mid flow.
The other is deploying the standalone pom corresponding to the SDO reactor
build. There is guidance at [2] but neither way described there seems to
work, for the straight file deploy route i get [3]
I'll keep plugging on, but if anyone has any insights they are very welcome
Kelvin
[1]
C:\Documents and
Settings\ibm_user\.m2\repository\org\apache\tuscany\sdo\tuscany-sdo-tools\1.0-incubating-beta1>ls
tuscany-sdo-tools-1.0-incubating-beta1.jar
tuscany-sdo-tools-1.0-incubating-beta1.pom
C:\Documents and
Settings\ibm_user\.m2\repository\org\apache\tuscany\sdo\tuscany-sdo-tools\1.0-incubating-beta1>mvn
deploy:de
ploy-file -DrepositoryId=people.apache.org-Durl=scp://people.apache.org/home/kelvingoodson/public_html/repo
-DgeneratePom=fa
lse -DpomFile=tuscany-sdo-tools-1.0-incubating-beta1.pom -Dfile=
tuscany-sdo-tools-1.0-incubating-beta1.jar -DgeneratePom=fals
e -DgroupId=org.apache.tuscany.sdo -DartifactId=tuscany-sdo-tools -Dversion=
1.0-incubating-beta1
[INFO] Scanning for projects...
[INFO] Searching repository for plugin with prefix: 'deploy'.
[INFO]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Building Maven Default Project
[INFO] task-segment: [deploy:deploy-file] (aggregator-style)
[INFO]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] [deploy:deploy-file]
Password:: ********
Uploading:
scp://people.apache.org/home/kelvingoodson/public_html/repo/org/apache/tuscany/sdo/tuscany-sdo-tools/1.0-incubatin
g-beta1/tuscany-sdo-tools-1.0-incubating-beta1.jar
108K uploaded
[INFO] Retrieving previous metadata from people.apache.org
Password:: ********
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ERROR] BUILD ERROR
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Error installing artifact's metadata: Error installing metadata:
Error copying POM to the local repository.
File C:\Documents and
Settings\ibm_user\.m2\repository\org\apache\tuscany\sdo\tuscany-sdo-tools\1.0-incubating-beta1\tuscany-
sdo-tools-1.0-incubating-beta1.pom does not exist
[2]
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Deploy+Plugin
[3]
C:\temp>mvn deploy:deploy-file
-DgroupId=org.apache.tuscany.sdo-DartifactId=tuscany-sdo -Dversion=
1.0-incubating-beta1 -Dpac
kaging=pom -Dfile=tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubating-beta1.pom-Durl=scp://people.apache.org/home/kelvingoodson/public_html/repo
-Dre
positoryId=people.apache.org -DgeneratePom=false
[INFO] Scanning for projects...
[INFO] Searching repository for plugin with prefix: 'deploy'.
[INFO]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Building Maven Default Project
[INFO] task-segment: [deploy:deploy-file] (aggregator-style)
[INFO]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] [deploy:deploy-file]
Password:: ********
Uploading:
scp://people.apache.org/home/kelvingoodson/public_html/repo/org/apache/tuscany/sdo/tuscany-sdo/1.0-incubating-beta
1/tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubating-beta1.pom
6K uploaded
[INFO] Retrieving previous metadata from people.apache.org
Password:: ********
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ERROR] FATAL ERROR
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] null
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Trace
java.lang.NullPointerException
at org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtils.copyFile(FileUtils.java:795)
at
org.apache.maven.project.artifact.ProjectArtifactMetadata.storeInLocalRepository
(ProjectArtifactMetadata.java:92)
at
org.apache.maven.artifact.repository.metadata.DefaultRepositoryMetadataManager.deploy
(DefaultRepositoryMetadataMan
ager.java:428)
at org.apache.maven.artifact.deployer.DefaultArtifactDeployer.deploy
(DefaultArtifactDeployer.java:86)
at org.apache.maven.plugin.deploy.DeployFileMojo.execute(
DeployFileMojo.java:236)
at org.apache.maven.plugin.DefaultPluginManager.executeMojo(
DefaultPluginManager.java:420)
at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeGoals(
DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:539)
at
org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeStandaloneGoal(
DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:493)
at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeGoal(
DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:463)
at
org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeGoalAndHandleFailures
(DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:311
)
at
org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeTaskSegments(
DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:224)
at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.execute(
DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:143)
at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute(DefaultMaven.java:330)
at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.execute(DefaultMaven.java:123)
at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.main(MavenCli.java:272)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:64)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:615)
at org.codehaus.classworlds.Launcher.launchEnhanced(Launcher.java
:315)
at org.codehaus.classworlds.Launcher.launch(Launcher.java:255)
at org.codehaus.classworlds.Launcher.mainWithExitCode(Launcher.java
:430)
at org.codehaus.classworlds.Launcher.main(Launcher.java:375)
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 25/04/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/25/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've got to the point where I have packaged up a new beta1 SDO java
> > release
> > candidate in the style if the last one [1], but that's only part of the
> > process now that I have to set up a remote maven repository as a staging
> > post for the deployed release candidate artifacts (as per the recent
> > discussion on incubator general).
> > I'm just about to figure out how to create/configure the repo, but any
> > tips
> > on the process for making the maven repo are welcome;
>
>
> Ideally the build would be setup with the maven release plugin, but
> without
> that you can deploy individual files manually. As an example, I've just
> deployed the sdo impl jar in that beta1-rc1 to a temp folder in my
> people.a.o space (http://people.apache.org/~antelder/temp/) with the
> following:
>
> mvn deploy:deploy-file
> -DgroupId=org.apache.tuscany.sdo-DartifactId=tuscany-sdo-impl
> -Dversion=
> 1.0-incubating-beta1 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=
> tuscany-sdo-impl-1.0-incubating-beta1.jar
> -DrepositoryId=
> apache.rsync-Durl=scp://people.apache.org/home/antelder/public_html/temp
>
> ...ant
>
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 4/25/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've got to the point where I have packaged up a new beta1 SDO java
> release
> candidate in the style if the last one [1], but that's only part of the
> process now that I have to set up a remote maven repository as a staging
> post for the deployed release candidate artifacts (as per the recent
> discussion on incubator general).
> I'm just about to figure out how to create/configure the repo, but any
> tips
> on the process for making the maven repo are welcome;
Ideally the build would be setup with the maven release plugin, but without
that you can deploy individual files manually. As an example, I've just
deployed the sdo impl jar in that beta1-rc1 to a temp folder in my
people.a.o space (http://people.apache.org/~antelder/temp/) with the
following:
mvn deploy:deploy-file
-DgroupId=org.apache.tuscany.sdo-DartifactId=tuscany-sdo-impl
-Dversion=
1.0-incubating-beta1 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=
tuscany-sdo-impl-1.0-incubating-beta1.jar
-DrepositoryId=apache.rsync-Durl=scp://people.apache.org/home/antelder/public_html/temp
...ant
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
I've got to the point where I have packaged up a new beta1 SDO java release
candidate in the style if the last one [1], but that's only part of the
process now that I have to set up a remote maven repository as a staging
post for the deployed release candidate artifacts (as per the recent
discussion on incubator general).
I'm just about to figure out how to create/configure the repo, but any tips
on the process for making the maven repo are welcome; I'll post back my
findings.
[1] http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/beta1/RC1/
Kelvin.
On 24/04/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ant,
> your note is well timed as I've had a couple of off-line chats with
> people in the last week about release naming, particularly with regard to
> the effect that a milestone or alpha name can have on uptake of a release.
> In the IRC chat of 16th April [1] we reached a conclusion that given the
> fact that a new release candidate had just been posted for consideration, we
> would leave naming as it was. However, I got the impression that in general
> the community was giving me an implicit +0 vote to retaining the M3 release
> tag, but the ideal would be to move to a beta1 tag. At the time there was a
> handful of small SDO 2.1 spec features for which we didn't have a first
> cut implementation. Now this has reduced to just a couple, and it seemed
> that there was consensus from the discussion that a beta* tag was not
> incompatible with this state, so long as the omissions were documented.
>
> The SDO RC3 has been available for a little while for comment, but has
> not received much attention. I have a couple of small non-blocking issues
> with the candidate that I have spotted that I would like to tidy up. So I
> propose that I quickly cut a new 1.0-incubating-beta1 tag from the M3
> tag, make my small fixes (including adopting the incubating name convention
> over the previous incubator convention) post a new candidate and start a
> vote on that candidate. I'd like to do this ASAP and I don't think this is
> contentious, but I guess I need to give a little time for reaction before
> proceeding, as my actions would not be in accordance with the outcome
> community discussions; I propose to do this at start of UK business
> tomorrow.
>
> Kelvin
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16772.html
>
> On 24/04/07, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > What are we going to be calling this next SCA release?
> >
> > We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are
> > talking
> > about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was
> > some
> > discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha
> > release
> > names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound
> > unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking
> > about
> > making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are
> > becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me.
> >
> > So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could
> > try
> > to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming?
> >
> > Any comments or alternative name suggestions?
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
>
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
Ant,
your note is well timed as I've had a couple of off-line chats with people
in the last week about release naming, particularly with regard to the
effect that a milestone or alpha name can have on uptake of a release. In
the IRC chat of 16th April [1] we reached a conclusion that given the fact
that a new release candidate had just been posted for consideration, we
would leave naming as it was. However, I got the impression that in general
the community was giving me an implicit +0 vote to retaining the M3 release
tag, but the ideal would be to move to a beta1 tag. At the time there was a
handful of small SDO 2.1 spec features for which we didn't have a first cut
implementation. Now this has reduced to just a couple, and it seemed that
there was consensus from the discussion that a beta* tag was not
incompatible with this state, so long as the omissions were documented.
The SDO RC3 has been available for a little while for comment, but has not
received much attention. I have a couple of small non-blocking issues with
the candidate that I have spotted that I would like to tidy up. So I
propose that I quickly cut a new 1.0-incubating-beta1 tag from the M3 tag,
make my small fixes (including adopting the incubating name convention over
the previous incubator convention) post a new candidate and start a vote on
that candidate. I'd like to do this ASAP and I don't think this is
contentious, but I guess I need to give a little time for reaction before
proceeding, as my actions would not be in accordance with the outcome
community discussions; I propose to do this at start of UK business
tomorrow.
Kelvin
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16772.html
On 24/04/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What are we going to be calling this next SCA release?
>
> We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are talking
> about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was some
> discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha
> release
> names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound
> unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking about
> making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are
> becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me.
>
> So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could try
> to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming?
>
> Any comments or alternative name suggestions?
>
> ...ant
>