1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On 1/11/06, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> Aside from the new committers we added, does anyone have suggestions
> for what I should put in the quarterly board report for the Incubator?
> Perhaps a plan for a 1.0 release, maybe?

The last 1.0 discussion ended with a concern for the open issues in
versioning. Other than that the Jira roadmap looks pretty good for
making the release. My opinion is that instead of waiting for perfect
quality, we should make the release with a known issue notice about
the versioning. What's the general opinion?

Should we appoint a release manager as in
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html? I can take the task unless
someone else wants to.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development

Re: 1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

[Edgar Poce <ed...@gmail.com>]

Hi

On 1/11/06, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The last 1.0 discussion ended with a concern for the open issues in
> versioning.
Sorry if my opinion delayed the process, I was particularly concerned
about data integrity by the time the las discussion took place because
I had had a few problems in that area during development. Happily,
many improvements were made and now versioning participates in
transactions :), thx dominique!

> Should we appoint a release manager as in
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html? I can take the task unless
> someone else wants to.

+1, and thanks for your effort. I'll wait for the checklist and see if
I can help.

br,
edgar

>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> --
> Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
> Software craftmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
>

Re: 1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On 1/11/06, Brian Moseley <bc...@maz.org> wrote:
> +1. jukka, i can probably spare some time to give you a hand with
> release tasks, if you want to make a checklist.

Cool, thanks. I'll compile a list of things to do.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development

Re: 1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

[Brian Moseley <bc...@maz.org>]

On 1/11/06, Stefan Guggisberg <st...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for making release with open issues notice. there are still some
> open node type-related issues which i hope to be able to fix until the
> end of this month, maybe sooner.

+1. i'd love to see the 1.0 release happen, if only for the greedy
personal need to make uneducated customers feel more comfortable with
jackrabbit's quality ;)

> +1, thanks for taking the helm  :-)

+1. jukka, i can probably spare some time to give you a hand with
release tasks, if you want to make a checklist.

Re: 1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

[Gregory Block <gb...@ctoforaday.com>]

+1 for graduation on release from someone who'd like to inform people  
he's incorporating a 1.0 product which isn't also still incubating.  :)

On 12 Jan 2006, at 17:45, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> David Nuescheler wrote:
>> Thanks a lot to Jukka for taking the lead on the release.
>> I think this is a very important step for the Jackrabbit project  
>> in general
>> and I guess everybody greatly appreciates an outstandingly qualified
>> release manager for the very first crucial release.
>
> +1
>
> It is also important to note that the incubator will be *very*  
> happy to hear that the release manager is somebody that is not  
> coming from the original pool of developers that started the  
> incubating project.
>
> I actually think, in all honesty, that my role as mentor ends here.
>
> Roy, last word is for you: do you think we should ask for  
> graduation once the 1.0 release is made? Should we combine the two  
> (graduation from incubation and release?)
>
> -- 
> Stefano.
>

Re: 1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On 1/15/06, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> Yes, though I actually meant that we need to document what the versions
> mean so that we all agree.  For example
>
>      http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html

My opinion would be to use a similar MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH versioning
scheme with the following semantics:

MAJOR versions are based on the JCR API version. Jackrabbit 1.x
implements the JSR 170 API and a future Jackrabbit 2.x will implement
the JSR 283 API. It is likely that some or even all of the
Jackrabbit-specific JCR extensions and underlying component interfaces
will be changed when a MAJOR version is made.

MINOR versions will all use the same JCR API and will thus be binary
compatible for pure JCR clients. It is possible for MINOR versions to
introduce new features and deprecate existing ones as long as the JCR
API is not touched. It would even be possible to break backwards
compatiblity by removing features that have been deprecated for at
least a single MINOR version.

PATCH versions contain only bug fixes. There will be no new features
or changes to the documented features (bugs are undocumented features
by definition :-). Whenever a MINOR release is made, a corresponding
branch is created in svn for the possible PATCH releases. Only bug
fixes will be committed to these branches.

The normal working model would then be evolutionary development in the
svn trunk with new MINOR releases being whenever a suitable set of new
features has been completed.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development

Re: 1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>]

On Jan 15, 2006, at 4:09 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> On 1/13/06, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> Jukka, I encourage you to produce a few incubating release builds
>> as version 0.9.x as soon as you feel like that would be productive.
>
> Sounds good. I'll set up a 0.9 milestone in Jira with the immediate
> stuff. With that I hope to have an initial 0.9 release ready during
> January.

Okay, but you can also just use the 1.0 milestone -- we all know
that is the real destination anyway.  0.9.x is just practice so that,
when we build 1.0, we have all the kinks out of the release process.

>> We need to start working on the versioning rules and, since we are
>> a library, it will need to be clear that there will be no  
>> incompatible
>> interface changes in the 1.x series.  We should run some tools on the
>> release package to be sure the public API is clean enough for use
>> by other projects.
>
> Good point. The main interface is of course the JSR 170 API, that I
> think we will be using for the entire 1.x series. I think that a good
> roadmap is to target Jackrabbit 2.0 as an implementation of JSR 283.
> This may cause a need to make a stable 1.x branch later this year to
> allow JSR 283 changes to be more easily introduced. I'm however not
> planning to make an immediate branch for 1.x as I think that at least
> 1.1 should come from the svn trunk.

Yes, though I actually meant that we need to document what the versions
mean so that we all agree.  For example

     http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html

> The other interfaces we need to stabilize are the main extension
> points like the PersistenceManager interface for external components
> and WorkspaceImpl.createWorkspace() for applications. Would it make
> sense to move such interfaces to something like o.a.j.api for clarity
> and for flexibility in modifying o.a.j.core?

Yes, I think Toby has wanted to do that for a long time.

> I've occasionally used japitools (http://www.kaffe.org/~stuart/japi/)
> for binary compatibility checking, perhaps we can start using that for
> Jackrabbit as well.

Cool, didn't know about that one.

> Does anyone know of a Maven plugin for using
> japitools or other similar API checkers?

I searched but didn't find one.

....Roy

Re: 1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On 1/13/06, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> I think we should build a release candidate in incubator and then
> vote on releasing the jars as 0.9.x.  At that point, we should vote
> on graduation and request a TLP from the board.
>
> Jukka, I encourage you to produce a few incubating release builds
> as version 0.9.x as soon as you feel like that would be productive.

Sounds good. I'll set up a 0.9 milestone in Jira with the immediate
stuff. With that I hope to have an initial 0.9 release ready during
January.

> We need to start working on the versioning rules and, since we are
> a library, it will need to be clear that there will be no incompatible
> interface changes in the 1.x series.  We should run some tools on the
> release package to be sure the public API is clean enough for use
> by other projects.

Good point. The main interface is of course the JSR 170 API, that I
think we will be using for the entire 1.x series. I think that a good
roadmap is to target Jackrabbit 2.0 as an implementation of JSR 283.
This may cause a need to make a stable 1.x branch later this year to
allow JSR 283 changes to be more easily introduced. I'm however not
planning to make an immediate branch for 1.x as I think that at least
1.1 should come from the svn trunk.

The other interfaces we need to stabilize are the main extension
points like the PersistenceManager interface for external components
and WorkspaceImpl.createWorkspace() for applications. Would it make
sense to move such interfaces to something like o.a.j.api for clarity
and for flexibility in modifying o.a.j.core?

I've occasionally used japitools (http://www.kaffe.org/~stuart/japi/)
for binary compatibility checking, perhaps we can start using that for
Jackrabbit as well. Does anyone know of a Maven plugin for using
japitools or other similar API checkers?

BR,

Jukka Zitting

--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development

Re: 1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>]

On Jan 12, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> David Nuescheler wrote:
>> Thanks a lot to Jukka for taking the lead on the release.
>> I think this is a very important step for the Jackrabbit project  
>> in general
>> and I guess everybody greatly appreciates an outstandingly qualified
>> release manager for the very first crucial release.
>
> +1
>
> It is also important to note that the incubator will be *very*  
> happy to hear that the release manager is somebody that is not  
> coming from the original pool of developers that started the  
> incubating project.
>
> I actually think, in all honesty, that my role as mentor ends here.
>
> Roy, last word is for you: do you think we should ask for  
> graduation once the 1.0 release is made? Should we combine the two  
> (graduation from incubation and release?)

I think we should build a release candidate in incubator and then
vote on releasing the jars as 0.9.x.  At that point, we should vote
on graduation and request a TLP from the board.

Jukka, I encourage you to produce a few incubating release builds
as version 0.9.x as soon as you feel like that would be productive.
We need to start working on the versioning rules and, since we are
a library, it will need to be clear that there will be no incompatible
interface changes in the 1.x series.  We should run some tools on the
release package to be sure the public API is clean enough for use
by other projects.

....Roy

Re: 1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

[Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>]

David Nuescheler wrote:
> Thanks a lot to Jukka for taking the lead on the release.
> 
> I think this is a very important step for the Jackrabbit project in general
> and I guess everybody greatly appreciates an outstandingly qualified
> release manager for the very first crucial release.

+1

It is also important to note that the incubator will be *very* happy to 
hear that the release manager is somebody that is not coming from the 
original pool of developers that started the incubating project.

I actually think, in all honesty, that my role as mentor ends here.

Roy, last word is for you: do you think we should ask for graduation 
once the 1.0 release is made? Should we combine the two (graduation from 
incubation and release?)

-- 
Stefano.

Re: 1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

[David Nuescheler <da...@gmail.com>]

Thanks a lot to Jukka for taking the lead on the release.

I think this is a very important step for the Jackrabbit project in general
and I guess everybody greatly appreciates an outstandingly qualified
release manager for the very first crucial release.

Thanks again,
david

Re: 1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On 1/11/06, Stefan Guggisberg <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for making release with open issues notice. there are still some
> open node type-related issues which i hope to be able to fix until the
> end of this month, maybe sooner.

Cool! I just added Jira issues for the remaining JCR-RMI issues I'm
planning to have ready for 1.0.

If there are other fixes or features you'd like to see in 1.0, please
file Jira issues and tag them for the release by setting the "Fix
version" to 1.0.

Unless anyone object, I'd like to freeze the 1.0 issue list on
February 1st. We can then decide which issues to postpone for 1.1 (or
a later version) and focus on solving the remaining open issues. My
suggestion is to postpone any non-critical issues that would require
more than a few days to fix. My plan would then be to make an alpha
release fairly quickly at the beginning of February. If the remaining
open issues are fixed timely and no major problems are found with the
alpha, then I suppose we could have the release ready for the
acceptance vote sometime in late February/early March.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development

Re: 1.0 release plan (Was: time for another incubator board report)

[Stefan Guggisberg <st...@gmail.com>]

On 1/11/06, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 1/11/06, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> > Aside from the new committers we added, does anyone have suggestions
> > for what I should put in the quarterly board report for the Incubator?
> > Perhaps a plan for a 1.0 release, maybe?
>
> The last 1.0 discussion ended with a concern for the open issues in
> versioning. Other than that the Jira roadmap looks pretty good for
> making the release. My opinion is that instead of waiting for perfect
> quality, we should make the release with a known issue notice about
> the versioning. What's the general opinion?

+1 for making release with open issues notice. there are still some
open node type-related issues which i hope to be able to fix until the
end of this month, maybe sooner.

>
> Should we appoint a release manager as in
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html? I can take the task unless
> someone else wants to.

+1, thanks for taking the helm  :-)

cheers
stefan

>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> --
> Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
> Software craftmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
>