You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ode.apache.org by Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org> on 2007/12/03 15:56:09 UTC
Re: Next Release
I think our little deadline has passed. Everybody's ready for a first RC?
Cheers,
Matthieu
On Nov 21, 2007 6:53 AM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com> wrote:
> Sounds good to me. Let's shoot for November 30th for the first 1.2release
> candidate.
>
> alex
>
>
> On 11/21/07, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I vote for 1.2.
> >
> > I'm currently working on a minor refactoring of the extension activity
> > stuff, so I'll need another week to commit these changes - is this
> > fine with the schedule?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tammo
> >
> > On 20/11/2007, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org> wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > Our 1.1 release has proven to be useful to a lot of (hopfeully) happy
> > users
> > > but since then we've fixed quite a few bugs and have done some nice
> > > improvements. So what about cutting a new release in the short to
> middle
> > > term? Has anybody something he (I waish there was more she around)
> wants
> > to
> > > finish before? Hopefully something not too long?
> > >
> > > As for numbers, we had expected a 1.1.1 coming sooner but given that
> > we've
> > > been a little tardy and added important features (extension activities
> > with
> > > Javascript assignment support or remote JDBC variables come to mind),
> I
> > > think this should be a 1.2, what do you think? If it sounds good
> enough
> > I'll
> > > go with moving all these Jira issues around and clean up all that
> stuff
> > a
> > > bit. Then we can start with the RC cycle.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Matthieu
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tammo van Lessen - tvanlessen@gmail.com - http://www.taval.de
> >
>
Re: Next Release
Posted by Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>.
Sounds good to me!
On 12/4/07, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org> wrote:
>
> It's looking good, the tests are all passing and we don't have any pending
> issue left. So I'm going to cut the first RC tomorrow (Wednesday). As far
> as
> branches / tags are concerned, I think I'm going to handle it this way
> (given we're already releasing from a branch):
>
> * copy the 1.1 branch to a 1.2
> * bump up the release number to 1.2RC1
> * make the release using the 1.2RC1 code
>
> Unless there are objections, I don't think it's really necessary to tag
> RCs,
> it's easy enough with SVN to tag from the new 1.2 branch once we have a
> release we like.
>
> Sounds good?
>
> Matthieu
>
Re: Next Release
Posted by victor panizza <vi...@gmail.com>.
+1.
Victor Panizza
On Dec 5, 2007 10:18 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1. Cheers Tammo
>
> 2007/12/5, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>:
> > Yeah, I just arrived at the same conclusion. I vote for 1.1.1 as well.
> >
> >
> > On 12/5/07, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually I was reviewing the list of changes and there's nothing
> really
> > > major. A long list of small fixes, performance and usability
> improvements
> > > but nothing earth-shattering. It still provides a lot of value for
> users
> > > are
> > > there are a few annoying things in there but given that we're holding
> up
> > > the
> > > major features for a little more, what about calling it a 1.1.1instead of
> > > 1.2? I think it captures the minor nature of the release a bit better
> and
> > > leaves 1.2 for the bells and whistles.
> > >
> > > Matthieu
> > >
> > > On Dec 5, 2007 8:14 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Matthieu Riou wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 5, 2007 7:09 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I see, ok. Then I got it wrong in your last mail. Sorry. E4X
> assigns
> > > > and
> > > > >> extension activities are not (yet) back ported to the 1.1 branch.
> It
> > > > >> would be okay for me to put into the next release train but I
> think
> > > > it's
> > > > >> not that hard to port it back to 1.2. What do you guys think?
> > > > >> (especially regarding the change in the OAssign and some other
> > > OClasses
> > > > >> - users would need to compile their processes again)
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, I'd love to get these features out ASAP but they also break
> > > > backward
> > > > > compatibility of the compiled process and for a lot of people with
> > > > running
> > > > > instances that's a problem. I think we should have a fairly
> > > > > conservative 1.2and then introduce all these changes in
> > > > > 2.0 once we'll have a way to support compiled processes migration.
> > > > Hopefully
> > > > > that should come quickly, I thinks this release has already been
> far
> > > too
> > > > > long to come. I don't feel like delaying much more 1.2 as we have
> a
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > fixes in the 1.1 branch that are pretty useful. Sounds good?
> > > > Yep, sounds good.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Tammo
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Tammo van Lessen - tvanlessen@gmail.com - http://www.taval.de
>
Re: Next Release
Posted by Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com>.
+1. Cheers Tammo
2007/12/5, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>:
> Yeah, I just arrived at the same conclusion. I vote for 1.1.1 as well.
>
>
> On 12/5/07, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org> wrote:
> >
> > Actually I was reviewing the list of changes and there's nothing really
> > major. A long list of small fixes, performance and usability improvements
> > but nothing earth-shattering. It still provides a lot of value for users
> > are
> > there are a few annoying things in there but given that we're holding up
> > the
> > major features for a little more, what about calling it a 1.1.1 instead of
> > 1.2? I think it captures the minor nature of the release a bit better and
> > leaves 1.2 for the bells and whistles.
> >
> > Matthieu
> >
> > On Dec 5, 2007 8:14 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Matthieu Riou wrote:
> > > > On Dec 5, 2007 7:09 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I see, ok. Then I got it wrong in your last mail. Sorry. E4X assigns
> > > and
> > > >> extension activities are not (yet) back ported to the 1.1 branch. It
> > > >> would be okay for me to put into the next release train but I think
> > > it's
> > > >> not that hard to port it back to 1.2. What do you guys think?
> > > >> (especially regarding the change in the OAssign and some other
> > OClasses
> > > >> - users would need to compile their processes again)
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I'd love to get these features out ASAP but they also break
> > > backward
> > > > compatibility of the compiled process and for a lot of people with
> > > running
> > > > instances that's a problem. I think we should have a fairly
> > > > conservative 1.2and then introduce all these changes in
> > > > 2.0 once we'll have a way to support compiled processes migration.
> > > Hopefully
> > > > that should come quickly, I thinks this release has already been far
> > too
> > > > long to come. I don't feel like delaying much more 1.2 as we have a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > fixes in the 1.1 branch that are pretty useful. Sounds good?
> > > Yep, sounds good.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Tammo
> > >
> >
>
--
Tammo van Lessen - tvanlessen@gmail.com - http://www.taval.de
Re: Next Release
Posted by Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>.
Yeah, I just arrived at the same conclusion. I vote for 1.1.1 as well.
On 12/5/07, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org> wrote:
>
> Actually I was reviewing the list of changes and there's nothing really
> major. A long list of small fixes, performance and usability improvements
> but nothing earth-shattering. It still provides a lot of value for users
> are
> there are a few annoying things in there but given that we're holding up
> the
> major features for a little more, what about calling it a 1.1.1 instead of
> 1.2? I think it captures the minor nature of the release a bit better and
> leaves 1.2 for the bells and whistles.
>
> Matthieu
>
> On Dec 5, 2007 8:14 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Matthieu Riou wrote:
> > > On Dec 5, 2007 7:09 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I see, ok. Then I got it wrong in your last mail. Sorry. E4X assigns
> > and
> > >> extension activities are not (yet) back ported to the 1.1 branch. It
> > >> would be okay for me to put into the next release train but I think
> > it's
> > >> not that hard to port it back to 1.2. What do you guys think?
> > >> (especially regarding the change in the OAssign and some other
> OClasses
> > >> - users would need to compile their processes again)
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yeah, I'd love to get these features out ASAP but they also break
> > backward
> > > compatibility of the compiled process and for a lot of people with
> > running
> > > instances that's a problem. I think we should have a fairly
> > > conservative 1.2and then introduce all these changes in
> > > 2.0 once we'll have a way to support compiled processes migration.
> > Hopefully
> > > that should come quickly, I thinks this release has already been far
> too
> > > long to come. I don't feel like delaying much more 1.2 as we have a
> lot
> > of
> > > fixes in the 1.1 branch that are pretty useful. Sounds good?
> > Yep, sounds good.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tammo
> >
>
Re: Next Release
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>.
Actually I was reviewing the list of changes and there's nothing really
major. A long list of small fixes, performance and usability improvements
but nothing earth-shattering. It still provides a lot of value for users are
there are a few annoying things in there but given that we're holding up the
major features for a little more, what about calling it a 1.1.1 instead of
1.2? I think it captures the minor nature of the release a bit better and
leaves 1.2 for the bells and whistles.
Matthieu
On Dec 5, 2007 8:14 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Matthieu Riou wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 2007 7:09 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I see, ok. Then I got it wrong in your last mail. Sorry. E4X assigns
> and
> >> extension activities are not (yet) back ported to the 1.1 branch. It
> >> would be okay for me to put into the next release train but I think
> it's
> >> not that hard to port it back to 1.2. What do you guys think?
> >> (especially regarding the change in the OAssign and some other OClasses
> >> - users would need to compile their processes again)
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, I'd love to get these features out ASAP but they also break
> backward
> > compatibility of the compiled process and for a lot of people with
> running
> > instances that's a problem. I think we should have a fairly
> > conservative 1.2and then introduce all these changes in
> > 2.0 once we'll have a way to support compiled processes migration.
> Hopefully
> > that should come quickly, I thinks this release has already been far too
> > long to come. I don't feel like delaying much more 1.2 as we have a lot
> of
> > fixes in the 1.1 branch that are pretty useful. Sounds good?
> Yep, sounds good.
>
> Cheers,
> Tammo
>
Re: Next Release
Posted by Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Matthieu Riou wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2007 7:09 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I see, ok. Then I got it wrong in your last mail. Sorry. E4X assigns and
>> extension activities are not (yet) back ported to the 1.1 branch. It
>> would be okay for me to put into the next release train but I think it's
>> not that hard to port it back to 1.2. What do you guys think?
>> (especially regarding the change in the OAssign and some other OClasses
>> - users would need to compile their processes again)
>>
>
> Yeah, I'd love to get these features out ASAP but they also break backward
> compatibility of the compiled process and for a lot of people with running
> instances that's a problem. I think we should have a fairly
> conservative 1.2and then introduce all these changes in
> 2.0 once we'll have a way to support compiled processes migration. Hopefully
> that should come quickly, I thinks this release has already been far too
> long to come. I don't feel like delaying much more 1.2 as we have a lot of
> fixes in the 1.1 branch that are pretty useful. Sounds good?
Yep, sounds good.
Cheers,
Tammo
Re: Next Release
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>.
On Dec 5, 2007 7:09 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see, ok. Then I got it wrong in your last mail. Sorry. E4X assigns and
> extension activities are not (yet) back ported to the 1.1 branch. It
> would be okay for me to put into the next release train but I think it's
> not that hard to port it back to 1.2. What do you guys think?
> (especially regarding the change in the OAssign and some other OClasses
> - users would need to compile their processes again)
>
Yeah, I'd love to get these features out ASAP but they also break backward
compatibility of the compiled process and for a lot of people with running
instances that's a problem. I think we should have a fairly
conservative 1.2and then introduce all these changes in
2.0 once we'll have a way to support compiled processes migration. Hopefully
that should come quickly, I thinks this release has already been far too
long to come. I don't feel like delaying much more 1.2 as we have a lot of
fixes in the 1.1 branch that are pretty useful. Sounds good?
Matthieu
>
> Cheers,
> Tammo
>
> Matthieu Riou wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 2007 1:43 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm now a bit confused... are we going to release the current trunk or
> >> the current 1.1-branch?
> >>
> >
> > The current 1.1 which includes a few additional features and a lot of
> bug
> > fixes. The trunk is still not so stable and more importantly still
> breaks
> > backward compatibility (but I think Maciej is working on that).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Matthieu
> >
> >
> >> Tammo
> >>
> >> On Dec 5, 2007 2:10 AM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.orgcom/<
> matthieu@offthelip.org>>
> >> wrote:
> >>> It's looking good, the tests are all passing and we don't have any
> >> pending
> >>> issue left. So I'm going to cut the first RC tomorrow (Wednesday). As
> >> far as
> >>> branches / tags are concerned, I think I'm going to handle it this way
> >>> (given we're already releasing from a branch):
> >>>
> >>> * copy the 1.1 branch to a 1.2
> >>> * bump up the release number to 1.2RC1
> >>> * make the release using the 1.2RC1 code
> >>>
> >>> Unless there are objections, I don't think it's really necessary to
> tag
> >> RCs,
> >>> it's easy enough with SVN to tag from the new 1.2 branch once we have
> a
> >>> release we like.
> >>>
> >>> Sounds good?
> >>>
> >>> Matthieu
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 3, 2007 11:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Tammo van Lessen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Matthieu Riou wrote:
> >>>>>> I think our little deadline has passed. Everybody's ready for a
> >>>>>> first RC?
> >>>>> Yep.
> >>>> Ditto.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Alan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tammo van Lessen - tvanlessen@gmail.com - http://www.taval.de
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: Next Release
Posted by Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>.
On 12/5/07, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I see, ok. Then I got it wrong in your last mail. Sorry. E4X assigns and
> extension activities are not (yet) back ported to the 1.1 branch. It
> would be okay for me to put into the next release train but I think it's
> not that hard to port it back to 1.2. What do you guys think?
> (especially regarding the change in the OAssign and some other OClasses
> - users would need to compile their processes again)
I think it's fine to wait for the next release. The same is happening to
the external variables feature; we were hoping it would make it into 1.2 in
final form but we're still making semantic changes so it's not yet ready.
So it will be for the next train and also push us to do releases more
frequently. As a suggestion, we could plan for a 1.3 release late January.
As for the trunk, Maciej has started working on the concurrent O-model
versioning scheme that we proposed last month. Once that's done, we'll be
in position to release it as 2.0. I'd expect we could start doing release
candidates for 2.0 in February/March.
alex
Re: Next Release
Posted by Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com>.
I see, ok. Then I got it wrong in your last mail. Sorry. E4X assigns and
extension activities are not (yet) back ported to the 1.1 branch. It
would be okay for me to put into the next release train but I think it's
not that hard to port it back to 1.2. What do you guys think?
(especially regarding the change in the OAssign and some other OClasses
- users would need to compile their processes again)
Cheers,
Tammo
Matthieu Riou wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2007 1:43 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm now a bit confused... are we going to release the current trunk or
>> the current 1.1-branch?
>>
>
> The current 1.1 which includes a few additional features and a lot of bug
> fixes. The trunk is still not so stable and more importantly still breaks
> backward compatibility (but I think Maciej is working on that).
>
> Cheers,
> Matthieu
>
>
>> Tammo
>>
>> On Dec 5, 2007 2:10 AM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>>
>> wrote:
>>> It's looking good, the tests are all passing and we don't have any
>> pending
>>> issue left. So I'm going to cut the first RC tomorrow (Wednesday). As
>> far as
>>> branches / tags are concerned, I think I'm going to handle it this way
>>> (given we're already releasing from a branch):
>>>
>>> * copy the 1.1 branch to a 1.2
>>> * bump up the release number to 1.2RC1
>>> * make the release using the 1.2RC1 code
>>>
>>> Unless there are objections, I don't think it's really necessary to tag
>> RCs,
>>> it's easy enough with SVN to tag from the new 1.2 branch once we have a
>>> release we like.
>>>
>>> Sounds good?
>>>
>>> Matthieu
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 3, 2007 11:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Tammo van Lessen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Matthieu Riou wrote:
>>>>>> I think our little deadline has passed. Everybody's ready for a
>>>>>> first RC?
>>>>> Yep.
>>>> Ditto.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tammo van Lessen - tvanlessen@gmail.com - http://www.taval.de
>>
>
Re: Next Release
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>.
On Dec 5, 2007 1:43 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm now a bit confused... are we going to release the current trunk or
> the current 1.1-branch?
>
The current 1.1 which includes a few additional features and a lot of bug
fixes. The trunk is still not so stable and more importantly still breaks
backward compatibility (but I think Maciej is working on that).
Cheers,
Matthieu
>
> Tammo
>
> On Dec 5, 2007 2:10 AM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>>
> wrote:
> > It's looking good, the tests are all passing and we don't have any
> pending
> > issue left. So I'm going to cut the first RC tomorrow (Wednesday). As
> far as
> > branches / tags are concerned, I think I'm going to handle it this way
> > (given we're already releasing from a branch):
> >
> > * copy the 1.1 branch to a 1.2
> > * bump up the release number to 1.2RC1
> > * make the release using the 1.2RC1 code
> >
> > Unless there are objections, I don't think it's really necessary to tag
> RCs,
> > it's easy enough with SVN to tag from the new 1.2 branch once we have a
> > release we like.
> >
> > Sounds good?
> >
> > Matthieu
> >
> >
> > On Dec 3, 2007 11:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Tammo van Lessen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Matthieu Riou wrote:
> > > >> I think our little deadline has passed. Everybody's ready for a
> > > >> first RC?
> > > > Yep.
> > >
> > > Ditto.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Alan
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tammo van Lessen - tvanlessen@gmail.com - http://www.taval.de
>
Re: Next Release
Posted by Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I'm now a bit confused... are we going to release the current trunk or
the current 1.1-branch?
Tammo
On Dec 5, 2007 2:10 AM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org> wrote:
> It's looking good, the tests are all passing and we don't have any pending
> issue left. So I'm going to cut the first RC tomorrow (Wednesday). As far as
> branches / tags are concerned, I think I'm going to handle it this way
> (given we're already releasing from a branch):
>
> * copy the 1.1 branch to a 1.2
> * bump up the release number to 1.2RC1
> * make the release using the 1.2RC1 code
>
> Unless there are objections, I don't think it's really necessary to tag RCs,
> it's easy enough with SVN to tag from the new 1.2 branch once we have a
> release we like.
>
> Sounds good?
>
> Matthieu
>
>
> On Dec 3, 2007 11:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Tammo van Lessen wrote:
> >
> > > Matthieu Riou wrote:
> > >> I think our little deadline has passed. Everybody's ready for a
> > >> first RC?
> > > Yep.
> >
> > Ditto.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> >
>
--
Tammo van Lessen - tvanlessen@gmail.com - http://www.taval.de
Re: Next Release
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>.
It's looking good, the tests are all passing and we don't have any pending
issue left. So I'm going to cut the first RC tomorrow (Wednesday). As far as
branches / tags are concerned, I think I'm going to handle it this way
(given we're already releasing from a branch):
* copy the 1.1 branch to a 1.2
* bump up the release number to 1.2RC1
* make the release using the 1.2RC1 code
Unless there are objections, I don't think it's really necessary to tag RCs,
it's easy enough with SVN to tag from the new 1.2 branch once we have a
release we like.
Sounds good?
Matthieu
On Dec 3, 2007 11:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Tammo van Lessen wrote:
>
> > Matthieu Riou wrote:
> >> I think our little deadline has passed. Everybody's ready for a
> >> first RC?
> > Yep.
>
> Ditto.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
Re: Next Release
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Tammo van Lessen wrote:
> Matthieu Riou wrote:
>> I think our little deadline has passed. Everybody's ready for a
>> first RC?
> Yep.
Ditto.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Next Release
Posted by Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com>.
Matthieu Riou wrote:
> I think our little deadline has passed. Everybody's ready for a first RC?
Yep.
Cheers,
Tammo