Well, the fact that Aries is incubating has nothing to do with the quality / readiness of the code. But if we're releasing with 0.1, i guess that's a sufficient warning ...
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 18:33, Timothy Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 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/ -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
