On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Sowerby wrote: > >> Hi Simon, >> >> With regards to the 1.2.1 release you are correct that we have a >> patched version of tuscany-sca-all which would work, but this however >> leaves us in an awkward configuration position. >> >> We're currently preparing a software release based around Tuscany >> which is completely open to customers of our use of Tuscany, such that >> we document fully how to construct services independent of our >> software. As such, we do not ship any Tuscany artifacts and instead >> encourage our customers to utilise the published maven repository. >> Whilst requiring a patch version of one of the jars is possible; I >> don't feel that this is a good representation of Tuscany - either >> documenting a variant version or expecting a non-standard version of >> 1.2-incubating. These potential solutions are more likely to cause >> issues for customers that would undermine the image of Tuscany that we >> try to project. >> >> Is anyone adamantly opposed to this release? Do you feel Tuscany >> 1.2.1 is still an option? I'd hope that given the potential to damage >> our customer's perception of Tuscany would be enough to justify this >> minor release. >> >> Thanks for the clarifaction and explanation. It seems to me that > because we distribute Tuscany via Maven repos, which can't be patched, > this kind of situation will arise whenever a serious bug is found. > We can use patches to isolate a problem and confirm the fix, but we > generally won't be able to use them as an alternative to a release. > > In a situation like this, unless a new release is imminent, the best > solution seems to be to produce a quick "bug fix" release without > incurring the overhead of a full release and testing cycle. Ant has > suggested that we could do this by applying a small set of carefully > controlled changes to the previous 1.2 release tag. I think we need > to be very strict about what changes go in, to avoid another experience > like 1.0.1. Specifically, I would suggest only including the fix > for TUSCANY-2304. > > What do others think of this? > > Simon > > > Cheers, >> >> Dave. >> >> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Nishant Joshi wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> I have raised TUSCANY-2304 which was actually blocking me to go further >>>> with >>>> SCA client. So It was given high priority to resolved and fortunately >>>> Ant >>>> has resolved it very fast, i appreciate his effortt, thanks alot Ant for >>>> this :). >>>> Another one was TUSCANY-2251 that was handled by Simon Nash and he has >>>> also >>>> done good progress on it (found from this list ). This problem came in >>>> eclipse generated web service client (please refer it for more detail) >>>> so >>>> this is also in high priority to get in next release. So i request to >>>> add >>>> TUSCANY-2304 in 1.2.1 and if possible TUSCANY-2251 also. >>>> >>>> One more thing, its very critical for us to get the next release 1.2.1 >>>> ASAP >>>> (with 2304 and if possbile 2251 also :) ). >>>> >>>> So I hope you can understand the effect of the TUSCANY-2304 for any >>>> tuscany >>>> SCA client user . >>>> >>> Hi Nishant, >>> The work to fix TUSCANY-2251 has turned out bigger than expected. >>> It's one of those cases where the first 80%-90% can be done quite >>> quickly but supporting the final 10%-20% of cases turns up many >>> issues, some of which require changes in other parts of the code. >>> >>> I'm preparing a (large) checkin to update the new generator code >>> so that it handles most of the cases (perhaps 95%). This should be >>> enough to get the full build to run with the new code. However, I >>> wouldn't consider the new code to be ready to release at that point. >>> It will need quite a bit of further testing and a few more updates >>> to take care of the remaining 5% of cases. Some of these cases will >>> require discussion on the list to agree how they should be handled. >>> Also, the new code will need testing by people other than myself >>> with their scenarios to make sure that it does not break cases that >>> worked with the previous Java2WSDL generator. >>> >>> For all these reasons, I think it will take about another 3 weeks >>> to get the new generator code to the state that I would be happy >>> to see it enabled in a release. >>> >>> Regarding TUSCANY-2304, from other emails I see that Ant has sent >>> you a patched version of tuscany-sca-all-1.2-incubating.jar that >>> contains the fix for your problem. Can you explain why you need a >>> new release in addition to this patch? >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > +1 to Simon's comment. Any kind of "fix creep" over what is really required is going to make this more than a quick bug fix release. Simon
