> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:50:17 +0100
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
>
> The fact that there's no persistence in the runtime is imho a show
> stopper. If you restart the framework, you can't access the deployed
> applications anymore. You can't install two applications containing
> the same bundle (which means you can't install the same application
> twice), etc ...
>
> I don't have any problems with realeasing it, but we should
> explicitely mark this component with whatever tag will make our users
> understand they can't really use it in production, just for testing /
> preview.
I'm not sure that that sort of warning is necessary for an incubating project's
0.1 release. I doubt anyone will expect what we have to be production ready
until we have had some release candidates and a 1.0 driver.
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:54, Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want applications included in a release. I do not agree that they
> > aren't usable. I think there are enhancements that can be made, but
> > that doesn't mean they aren't usable as is.
> >
> > Alasdair
> >
> > On 19 February 2010 08:11, 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alasdair Nottingham
> > [email protected]
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
