I think we should definitely be including the JPA runtime in the release. The AriesTrader sample uses the JPA runtime, and it would be odd to have a release that can't run our own sample.
I am slightly concerned about the JMX component, as I know there have been several structural discussions on the list recently. Obviously if those issues have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction then there won't be a problem there. Regards, Tim > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:11:08 +0100 > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > I'd like to see at least those included: > * blueprint > * jmx > * jndi > * transaction > > I don't think applications are really usable yet and I haven't really > looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it. > The transaction component is functional and we've been using it mostly > unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix. > Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not talking about > declarative transactions for blueprint, note). > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and for volunteering > > to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a better picture of > > the plans. > > > > I was really just interested in the general objectives and timing since it > > hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb means it will be > > delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a little too steep to > > climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong. > > > > The more communication the better. It's important to get everybody thinking > > and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if there are any > > differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of creating a > > release candidate next week means that we should be getting more restrictive > > on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises. > > > > I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or out - but in > > general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't functional. At > > the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not all of the > > components are fully functional yet (for example transaction). > > > > Best Regards, > > Joe > > > > > > Jeremy Hughes wrote: > >> > >> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am now out on > >> vacation until monday. > >> > >> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get what we have > >> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So 'must haves' > >> are to get the build in the right shape to create the distribution > >> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main area of the > >> code deserves at least a README to describe what's possible. Since > >> this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns - w.r.t > >> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb. If there are > >> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be included please > >> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to 0.1 and target > >> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to target a new > >> 0.2 version. WDYT? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Jeremy > >> > >> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Jeremy, > >>> > >>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the release and > >>> potential > >>> target dates? > >>> > >>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your thoughts in an email > >>> or > >>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as we make > >>> progress. > >>> Of particular interest would be the content that we would like to see in > >>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must have" from "nice to > >>> have"), the current status of that content, target dates for the release, > >>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the release. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Joe > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Jeremy Hughes wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help. > >>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting to put those > >>>>> on the wiki. > >>>> > >>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and the process has > >>>> changed quite a bit :-) > >>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jeremy > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all components at a > >>>>>>> 0.1 > >>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple versioning scheme, IMO. > >>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as an issue. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is an important > >>>>>>> step > >>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this happen... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --kevan > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> Guillaume Nodet > >>>>> ------------------------ > >>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > >>>>> ------------------------ > >>>>> Open Source SOA > >>>>> http://fusesource.com > >>>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Joe > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Joe > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com _________________________________________________________________ Send us your Hotmail stories and be featured in our newsletter http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
