You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shale.apache.org by Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> on 2007/01/01 00:48:35 UTC
Re: [v104] Ready
On 12/31/06, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No pending issues against 1.0.4 snap in JIRA ATM (the couple of open
> ones are sufficiently addressed IMO), so pending ~24 hours for any
> feedback on the dry run (let me know if you need more time), I will
> move towards a final set of proposed artifacts (and a vote).
>
> -Rahul
>
Picking my way through the release notes (nice job on the updates :-), I
notice we still have the following statement regarding the expected final
vote:
----- snip -----
This is the fourth milestone release of Shale, released to encourage
experimentation and gather feedback on usage issues and requested features.
A final vote on quality has yet to take place for this release, but it will
likely be voted to be of "beta" quality due to the following issues:
- Reliance on a snapshot of the unreleased Standalone Tiles package.
However, many of the APIs in Shale are reasonably stable -- for details, see
Shale API Target Audiences and Stability
Ratings<http://shale.apache.org/api-stability.html>
.
----- snip -----
We had talked earlier about the idea of doing quality rankings on the
individual packages separately, so that we'd have a chance to grant a GA
quality vote on some remaining portion other than shale-tiles. If we still
feel this way, I'd suggest modifying this text to something like this:
This is the fourth milestone release of Shale, released to encourage
experimentation
and gather feedback on usage issues and requested features. A full vote
on quality
has yet to take place for this release, but will take place later. We
plan to vote on the
quality of each module separately (where necessary). For example, the
shale-tiles
module is likely to receive a grade no higher than "Beta" because it
relies on a
snapshot of the as-yet unreleased Standalone Tiles package.
As a plan B, we could pull shale-tiles from this release entirely, and
release it separately (with its own release grade vote), as I'm pretty
confident that this would be the only exception. I'd be OK with this but
would still prefer that everything was packaged together and we did the vote
rankings specficially, with wording something like the above.
Thoughts?
Craig
Re: [v104] Ready
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@apache.org>.
On 12/31/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> We had talked earlier about the idea of doing quality rankings on the
> individual packages separately, so that we'd have a chance to grant a GA
> quality vote on some remaining portion other than shale-tiles. If we
> still
> feel this way, I'd suggest modifying this text to something like this:
>
> This is the fourth milestone release of Shale, released to encourage
> experimentation
> and gather feedback on usage issues and requested features. A full
> vote
> on quality
> has yet to take place for this release, but will take place later. We
> plan to vote on the
> quality of each module separately (where necessary). For example, the
> shale-tiles
> module is likely to receive a grade no higher than "Beta" because it
> relies on a
> snapshot of the as-yet unreleased Standalone Tiles package.
+1 to the above.
Greg
Re: [v104] Ready
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>.
On 1/1/07, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/31/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 12/31/06, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > No pending issues against 1.0.4 snap in JIRA ATM (the couple of open
> > > ones are sufficiently addressed IMO), so pending ~24 hours for any
> > > feedback on the dry run (let me know if you need more time), I will
> > > move towards a final set of proposed artifacts (and a vote).
> > >
> > > -Rahul
> > >
> >
> >
> > Picking my way through the release notes (nice job on the updates :-), I
> > notice we still have the following statement regarding the expected
> final
> > vote:
> >
> >
> > ----- snip -----
> >
> > This is the fourth milestone release of Shale, released to encourage
> > experimentation and gather feedback on usage issues and requested
> features.
> > A final vote on quality has yet to take place for this release, but it
> will
> > likely be voted to be of "beta" quality due to the following issues:
> >
> > - Reliance on a snapshot of the unreleased Standalone Tiles package.
> >
> > However, many of the APIs in Shale are reasonably stable -- for details,
> see
> > Shale API Target Audiences and Stability
> > Ratings<http://shale.apache.org/api-stability.html>
> > .
> >
> > ----- snip -----
> >
> > We had talked earlier about the idea of doing quality rankings on the
> > individual packages separately, so that we'd have a chance to grant a GA
> > quality vote on some remaining portion other than shale-tiles. If we
> still
> > feel this way, I'd suggest modifying this text to something like this:
> >
> > This is the fourth milestone release of Shale, released to encourage
> > experimentation
> > and gather feedback on usage issues and requested features. A full
> vote
> > on quality
> > has yet to take place for this release, but will take place
> later. We
> > plan to vote on the
> > quality of each module separately (where necessary). For example,
> the
> > shale-tiles
> > module is likely to receive a grade no higher than "Beta" because it
> > relies on a
> > snapshot of the as-yet unreleased Standalone Tiles package.
> >
> > As a plan B, we could pull shale-tiles from this release entirely, and
> > release it separately (with its own release grade vote), as I'm pretty
> > confident that this would be the only exception. I'd be OK with this
> but
> > would still prefer that everything was packaged together and we did the
> vote
> > rankings specficially, with wording something like the above.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> <snip/>
>
> Agreed (I prefer Plan A), thanks for the feedback. The previous blurb
> existed in the 104 release notes since this thread didn't get much
> feedback as to what that blurb should be:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y6dnbe
>
> I have now updated the notes based on this feedback.
+1 on your changes ... looks good.
-Rahul
Criag
> Craig
> >
> >
>
Re: [v104] Ready
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On 12/31/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 12/31/06, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > No pending issues against 1.0.4 snap in JIRA ATM (the couple of open
> > ones are sufficiently addressed IMO), so pending ~24 hours for any
> > feedback on the dry run (let me know if you need more time), I will
> > move towards a final set of proposed artifacts (and a vote).
> >
> > -Rahul
> >
>
>
> Picking my way through the release notes (nice job on the updates :-), I
> notice we still have the following statement regarding the expected final
> vote:
>
>
> ----- snip -----
>
> This is the fourth milestone release of Shale, released to encourage
> experimentation and gather feedback on usage issues and requested features.
> A final vote on quality has yet to take place for this release, but it will
> likely be voted to be of "beta" quality due to the following issues:
>
> - Reliance on a snapshot of the unreleased Standalone Tiles package.
>
> However, many of the APIs in Shale are reasonably stable -- for details, see
> Shale API Target Audiences and Stability
> Ratings<http://shale.apache.org/api-stability.html>
> .
>
> ----- snip -----
>
> We had talked earlier about the idea of doing quality rankings on the
> individual packages separately, so that we'd have a chance to grant a GA
> quality vote on some remaining portion other than shale-tiles. If we still
> feel this way, I'd suggest modifying this text to something like this:
>
> This is the fourth milestone release of Shale, released to encourage
> experimentation
> and gather feedback on usage issues and requested features. A full vote
> on quality
> has yet to take place for this release, but will take place later. We
> plan to vote on the
> quality of each module separately (where necessary). For example, the
> shale-tiles
> module is likely to receive a grade no higher than "Beta" because it
> relies on a
> snapshot of the as-yet unreleased Standalone Tiles package.
>
> As a plan B, we could pull shale-tiles from this release entirely, and
> release it separately (with its own release grade vote), as I'm pretty
> confident that this would be the only exception. I'd be OK with this but
> would still prefer that everything was packaged together and we did the vote
> rankings specficially, with wording something like the above.
>
> Thoughts?
>
<snip/>
Agreed (I prefer Plan A), thanks for the feedback. The previous blurb
existed in the 104 release notes since this thread didn't get much
feedback as to what that blurb should be:
http://tinyurl.com/y6dnbe
I have now updated the notes based on this feedback.
-Rahul
> Craig
>
>