I also would like to see the "web" module (or specifically the url converter) to be included in the release. I've been improving it for last few weeks and I think it's in a pretty decent shape.
Jarek On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
