Hi All, Could anyone give me any time scales for the 1.2.1 release?
The release I'm preparing is due to be released within the next week and is unfortunately blocked awaiting this update. I'm available to assist in any way necessary. Cheers, Dave. On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 AM, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can help with validating the samples and demos for 1.2.1. > > On 5/27/08, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 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 >> > -- Dave Sowerby MEng MBCS
