[wsif] today chat log

[Aleksander Slominski]

hi,

here is list of tasks/issues to address extracted from today chat:

* VERY IMPORTANT: _all_ pending tasks for final release and RCs must be in RELEASE_TASK.txt
- anybody waorking on releease should put there what is happening (including bug fixes)
(it is in CVS in doc/ subdirectory)
* next IRC chat on Moday Jan 13th - we keep discussing about release on mailing list
* RC1 on friday and necxt RC releases later final releease in mid-January shortly after Mon 13)
* TASK to keep discussing best build structure and how to make it easy
- also tentatively Ant in next RC2 will move all jar files to one lib directory
* keep updating list tof changes in doc (including new additions, bug fixes etc.)!
* maybe aslo remove some of "high priority" tasks as nobody signed for them (or seems to be working on them ...)
* Happy Hollidays!

thanks,

alek


[09:53] *** Now talking in #wsif.
*** Users on #wsif: alek_s Rob piotrp nirmal antElder @wsif_bot
*** End of /NAMES list.
*** Channel #wsif was created at Tue Dec 17 13:45:08 2002
[10:00] <owenb> hi one and all
[10:00] <alek_s> hello everybody [10:00] <nirmal> hello all
[10:00] <antElder> Hi all, I think thats all whos likely to come
[10:00] <piotrp> hi
[10:00] <nirmal> ok..Sanjiva might be joining later but we should start anyway
[10:01] <nirmal> Hi Rob, I think you are new here, tell us a bit about yourself and your interest in WSIF?
[10:01] <antElder> do you want to kick off alek?
[10:02] <alek_s> i do not think Roob is around ...
[10:03] <alek_s> i think that main topic to talk about is release this friday?
[10:03] <antElder> its ok to have others watching, lets start
[10:03] <alek_s> (i will post chat log anyway)
[10:04] <antElder> ok, some of us have already discussed this and think it should be postponed now
[10:04] <nirmal> right, RCs tomorrow and the last RC on Friday - this will be the same as the final release that will go out a bit later (early Jan)
[10:04] <nirmal> Unless of course we find something wrong with the last RC, we can make more RCs in Jan
[10:04] <antElder> I think we should have another beta and then wait til Jan for rc1
[10:05] *** Hesham (~[EMAIL PROTECTED]) has joined channel #wsif
[10:05] <alek_s> Ant: how do u think: was it is the list of things to do for RC1?
[10:05] <alek_s> hi Hesham
[10:05] <Hesham> Hi
[10:06] <Rob> Sorry all, I had to step out of the office.
[10:06] <alek_s> do u want to tell us what is your interest in WSIF?
[10:06] <antElder> we still have some problems I think need to be resolved before we contemplate an RCx
[10:06] <alek_s> Rob: taht i swhat i was suspecting :-)
[10:07] <antElder> for instance nightly builds don't seem to be working anymore
[10:07] <antElder> Originally when we discussed doing this release there was going to be just some new doc and a new sample, and we had a timetable for alpha, beta, rc and final.
[10:07] <alek_s> Ant: yes exactly
[10:07] <antElder> Instead we've had huge changes - completely re-written samples, new build, most existing doc replaced, also quite a few code changes to the axis provider, and the timetable for the alpha, beta etc release has been missed.
[10:07] <antElder> Given that the release timetable slipped, and the scale of these changes I think we need to now postpone the final release to some time in January.
[10:08] <antElder> I still don't like the format of the distribution - seperate libs for all the jar files, the wsif.jar not being in the lib directory, and the bin, src and all distributions.
[10:08] <alek_s> Ant: so you are concerned about quality of release (docs, samples, new code)?
[10:08] <antElder> There does seem to be an Apache standard way of doing this, and wsif should match the standards used by every other apache project - 1 lib dir with all jars including wsif.jar, and just 2 distributions - bin, and src.
[10:08] <Rob> Yes, I'm a software developer for Journee software. I discovered WSIF as part of a in-house project and decided to see how I could participate in furthering WSIF.
[10:08] <antElder> So, I'd like a beta2 once these things have been sorted out, and then leave that till sometime in January to get some stability.
[10:09] <alek_s> Rob: that is great - did you try to use current version?
[10:09] <Rob> I believe the latest version I tried was the 12/16 nightly build.
[10:10] <Hesham> I agree with Ant
[10:10] <owenb> I agree with Ant that releasing in the next few days feels a bit rushed.
[10:10] <alek_s> Rob: so what was your impression: what worked/did not work?
[10:10] <antElder> One problem is from today most of the active commiters are away on holiday so we can't even test any new beta or RC builds
[10:10] <nirmal> I agree we should not release in the next few days, but an RC is not a final release
[10:11] <nirmal> And if we do the final release after say Jan 7/8, that gives enough time to test
[10:11] <antElder> I'd be much more happy with a beta2 AFTER some of the things I mentioned have been resolved
[10:11] <Rob> The only problem I encountered was with type registration.
[10:12] <nirmal> Ant: re. your comment about samples: if you might notice that I've reused the old samples, I've added some new ones and I've added docs to make it easy to run
[10:12] *** Signoff: whitlock (Quit)
[10:12] <piotrp> I don't think there would be much testing done in next two weeks
[10:12] <antElder> the new samples are great, I'm not knocing them
[10:12] <nirmal> So your issue is that there have been a lot of changes, you don't know exactly what's been happening and oyu need some time to review?
[10:13] <owenb> Piotr, I agree, I think a release in the middle of Jan is more realistic
[10:14] <alek_s> Rob: did you send this problem to axis-dev and/or bugzilla?
[10:14] <antElder> nirmal: yes Ithink that would a good thing
[10:14] <piotrp> Owen, yes, we would certainly support that, j2c needs some more work as well
[10:16] <nirmal> Piotr: i'd put off the j2c work, we didn't plan on it for this release, I'd prefer it go in an incremental release later
[10:16] <nirmal> there is always work to do, we can't keep delaying the release - it's been months since we've been on Apache with no release at all
[10:16] <antElder> we could say that about servicefactories to;)
[10:17] <Rob> I think someone beat me to the punch. This problem was with an earlier version. The 12/6 and later versions have solved the problem.
[10:17] <alek_s> Rob: nice to hear this :-)
[10:17] <owenb> On the subject of schedules - I think we should go for another beta before xmas, then in the new year, assess where we are, have one or more RCs and then look to release after that
[10:17] <alek_s> Ant: as of changes to Axis provider - i think we have communications difficulties
[10:17] <nirmal> If the j2c changes are as small as the service factory change I don't mind putting them in now
[10:18] <alek_s> Ant: for example i have only very vague idea what are you working on and what kind of problems you have and where Axis provider is going ...
[10:18] <antElder> I don't I keep saying, but I still don't like the format of the distribution - seperate libs for all the jar files, the wsif.jar not being in the lib directory, and the bin, src and all distributions.
[10:18] <piotrp> Nirmal, j2c does not need any changes in the code, I meant samples, more and better documented.
[10:18] <owenb> I really don't see the need to rush out an RC - after all it's meant to be a candidate for the final release and whilst people still have issues with our current status, we cannot be ready for that
[10:19] <antElder> for the soap with attachments and docstyle work on the axis provider don in Nov, there were alot of changes to the AXIS provider,
[10:19] <alek_s> Owen: if we do not have any new functionality but improvements in docs/samples/build we shoul dhave RC ...
[10:19] <piotrp> so you are probably right, we should not postpone
[10:20] <antElder> To sort out some problems with that a couple of weeks ago I ended up rewritting a lot of it, which has added a few more problems still to be resolved
[10:20] <alek_s> Ant: could you post (and write to chnages.html) what is the problem - i have seen several post (and you filing bug with AXIS) but i suspect that not anybody outside your team knows what is status of AXIS provider ...
[10:21] <nirmal> Owen, Ant: I spoke with JEremy yesterday and I thought we clearly agreed on an RC this Friday and a final release in Jan. What changed?
[10:21] <alek_s> Ant: list of problems and future directions would bevery helpful to make WSIF more accessible to people from outside and maybe also encourage them to participate ... [10:22] <nirmal> I understand you guys have issues with the release but it seems to me that's because you haven't been able to keep up with what's been happening (no fault of yours) but we have been following the schedule, doing things in the release tasks as planned
[10:23] <antElder> I talked to Jeremy and we both agreed it would be good to postpone to Jan. But didn't discuss an RC on Friday.
[10:23] <alek_s> hi Hesham: do you want to say something about you and what are you interested to see in WSIF?
[10:23] <antElder> alek: yes I completely agree
[10:23] *** sanjiva (~[EMAIL PROTECTED]) has joined channel #wsif
[10:24] <sanjiva> hi guys
[10:24] <nirmal> Ant: Talk to Jeremy again and ask him if we agreed on an RC tomorrow
[10:24] <owenb> Nirmal, nothings changed, apart from the fact that we didn't meet our original target dates. I suppose at the end of the day an RC tomorrow is fine. I just don't like the feeling that we're rushing
[10:24] <antElder> but thats not going to happen over xmas
[10:24] <alek_s> Ant: for exmaple i think i have fairly good understanding of WSIF design but i had lot of problems reading through AXIS or JMS provider code ...
[10:24] <Hesham> Hi all, I am a committer on the J2C provider and I worked with Piotr to provide the initial drop...
[10:24] <alek_s> hi Sanjiva
[10:25] <antElder> Jeremy is on hoilday
[10:25] <antElder> what is the problem with putting off Rc1 till Jan?
[10:25] <sanjiva> what's the reason to? These guys have done the work needed to get it ready
[10:25] <alek_s> Ant: i think that we want WSIF to start be used
[10:26] <nirmal> Why not put it off until March? I feel WSIF is stable, great code that nobody can use because there is no release distribution
[10:26] <alek_s> Ant: until it is past beta version people are very hesistant to try (and put their time)
[10:26] <antElder> AXIS had seven months btw beta1 and final
[10:26] <nirmal> Ant, if it is good enough for WAS 5, don't you agree it is good enough to be released on Apache?
[10:26] <antElder> we're having 1 week
[10:26] <antElder> btw alpha1 and final
[10:26] <alek_s> Ant: i thnk currently everything is fairly documented, there are samples and we really need more external involvement!
[10:26] <nirmal> Ant: we have the final in mid Jan, I'm ok with that
[10:27] <antElder> so could we put off rc1 till then also?
[10:27] <alek_s> sanjiva: i think Ant and Owen are concerned about quality of release
[10:27] <piotrp> Nirmal, I'll fully agree - j2c is product quality
[10:27] <antElder> and existing problems
[10:27] <antElder> a working nightly build
[10:27] <alek_s> ant: we can (and shoul ) have more than one RC: rc1, rc2, ... rcX
[10:27] <antElder> I'd like an apache standard wsif distribution
[10:28] <alek_s> until we reach stable RC version that is only then final release
[10:28] <antElder> also beta1, 2, ...
[10:28] <alek_s> Anr: so the only conbcern you have is lib/ directoy layout?
[10:29] <antElder> most of the things can be sorted out by early Jan why not wait till then so it really is a rrelease candidate?
[10:29] <antElder> thats 1 concern
[10:29] <antElder> just by me by the sound of it
[10:29] <alek_s> Ant: this will delay first RC release for 3-4 weeks or more
[10:30] <antElder> what will?
[10:30] <sanjiva> what are the problems with the current stuff as Alek and Nirmal have built it
[10:31] <antElder> i think its a few more than just alek and nirmal
[10:31] <owenb> I think that the discussion is between having another beta or having an RC1. In a way it's just terminology
[10:32] <antElder> have I got it wrong? (I am new to this)
[10:32] <sanjiva> I'm sorry; I didn't mean it that way - you are right, of course!
[10:32] <sanjiva> OK, let me repeat the question- what's the problem with putting out what's currently proposed as an RC1?
[10:32] <owenb> so I suppose it doesn't matter much but I would say that an RC is meant to be a candidate for the final release and you should be quite prepared to go straight to a final release if no problems. If we know there are problems currently then we should have another beta first
[10:33] <owenb> Or is that not the way it works?
[10:33] <antElder> whats the problem with making it a beta2 as we know there will be code changes we going to make
[10:33] <nirmal> What code changes? I don't anticipate any. I don't think any tests fail with the current build. The samples work fine. Why should we have to make code changes?
[10:34] <antElder> - to the service factory code you just commited
[10:34] <antElder> - to the axis provider
[10:34] <nirmal> There is a psychological diff between beta and RC. If we put up a beta people won't be as encouraged to try it out.
[10:34] <antElder> - to the JMS provider
[10:34] <piotrp> yes, JMS, we found some problems
[10:34] <antElder> - AXIS was a betax for months, so I don't agree
[10:35] <sanjiva> axis's model for getting stuff out is not one to be proud of!! It took 2+ years to get a 1.0 out.
[10:35] <antElder> I'm please we now have a beta so people don't have to use a nightly build
[10:35] <nirmal> Yes, and what did that do for Axis? Everyone from here to Timbuktu was talking about how they took forever to come out with a 1.0, and any axis developer would agree that wasn't the bex=st thing
[10:35] <Hesham> I guess the real question we should be answering then is 'what changes are we expecting to put into the code between now and sometime in Jan?'
[10:35] <antElder> we're talking about postponing for a couple of weeks, we only had an alpha1 1 week ago
[10:35] <Hesham> If there are significant changes we should go the beta2 route.. if not then just an RC..
[10:36] <antElder> thanks you hesham
[10:36] <sanjiva> If there are significant changes; I agree. What are the significant changes that are in this codebase?
[10:36] <Rob> I also agree with Hesham. We are waiting for an official drop but it doesn't matter if it is beta2 or RC1.
[10:37] <Hesham> any one want to take a stab at listing what code changes we want to see done before a final release?
[10:37] <antElder> there's a number of bugzilla bugs for the jms provider
[10:37] <antElder> there's the AXIS problems I talked about earlier before you arrived
[10:37] <alek_s> i though we had this pinpointed in RELEASE_PLAN.txt in CVS that was supposed ot keep lis tof such things ...
[10:37] <nirmal> let me say this again: to my knowledge the *only* code change Ant is unaware of or not in control of is the service factory change. I'll take it off. Would you still have problems with going to RC then Ant?
[10:37] <Hesham> I know from a J2C perspective the code is pretty stable, we are just quite lacking on the documentation and samples..
[10:37] <antElder> there's getting the nightly build working
[10:37] <nirmal> We can never resolve all outstanding bugs. This is a software project.
[10:37] <alek_s> i am very dispappointed that it was *not* used for this purpose ...
[10:38] <nirmal> The current CVS tree works fine. What is the problem with the nightly?
[10:38] <alek_s> if we do nto communicate - how can we get work done? [10:38] <antElder> right well the alpha1 release date was the 1st thing missed on the plan
[10:38] <antElder> the beta1 build zip is actually many hours before CVS was tagged, I'm not even sure what code is in it
[10:40] <antElder> sorry I don't want to be arguing if theres consesus on having an rc1 then I'll be more quite
[10:41] <antElder> (quiet)
[10:41] <alek_s> you can easily run CVS diff for any time point
[10:41] <alek_s> nirmal did not tag BETA1 release when he has built it - so id di it and added to chnages.html
[10:41] <alek_s> precisely to allow keep track of chnegs
[10:41] <antElder> lets have a quick show of hands to see how people stand
[10:41] <alek_s> so far i think most of edits to chnages.htmlis doen by me ...
[10:41] <antElder> i'd like to put off an rc1 for now
[10:41] <alek_s> (i do try to show what i am doing)
[10:42] <alek_s> please keep in mnd it *is* open source project
[10:42] <alek_s> we are supposed to get work done and rely on our users to help us to do what matters for them
[10:43] <alek_s> the only way they are going tell that to us if we give them simehting ...
[10:43] <antElder> alek: most of the changes I'd been making are bug fixes, so I didn't add commnets
[10:43] <alek_s> and having code in CVS is not good enough for everybody ...
[10:43] <alek_s> Ant: it seems that changes are more serious if they can affect release?
[10:44] <antElder> how about that show of hands, if I'm alone on this we can move on
[10:45] <owenb> I bow to concensus and that seems to be that RC1 tomorrow is the way to go, then look for a release sometime mid Jan, possibly after other RCs
[10:45] <alek_s> +1 to release RC1 and follow with more RCs
[10:45] <owenb> Eveyone agree?
[10:45] <nirmal> +1 to RC tomorrow, more RCs after that, release in Jan
[10:46] <Hesham> +1 for RC tomorrow, but I am also fine with a beta2.
[10:46] <piotrp> +1 to RC or beta 2 tomorrow, more RCs after that, in Jan
[10:47] <owenb> I'm +0
[10:47] <piotrp> Owen, what about beta 2 tomorrow?
[10:47] <antElder> so if theres an RC1 can I continue with changes?
[10:48] <piotrp> That's my assumption, all the bug fixes have to go in
[10:48] <antElder> what is the diff btw beta2 and RC1? is there a difference?
[10:48] *** whitlock (~[EMAIL PROTECTED]) has joined channel #wsif
[10:48] <antElder> why didn't we go right to RC1 and bother with alpha and beta?
[10:48] <alek_s> Anr: yes if it is RC you cancontinue with changessuch as bug fixes [10:48] <piotrp> would you be more comfortable with Beta 2?
[10:48] <alek_s> Ant: the aim is to stabilize code!
[10:49] <owenb> If fixes cannot be applied to an RC1 then I'm -1 for RC1 tomorrow
[10:49] <antElder> its not quite there yet!
[10:49] <piotrp> Owen, same here
[10:49] <antElder> just by saying rc1 doesn't make it stable
[10:50] <antElder> didn't I say I'd be quiet. What was the count?
[10:51] <alek_s> thwew was 4x +1, one +0
[10:51] <piotrp> provided we can still put in changes...
[10:51] <antElder> well some of those +1 WAS TO EITHER
[10:51] <alek_s> so i think we will do RC1, properly tag CVS, and write into chnages.html what was chnaged since BETA1
[10:52] <antElder> no one is saying what the diff is?
[10:52] <alek_s> thne please i would liek to see *all* remianing actions/problems/bugs in RELEASE_TASKS.txt
[10:52] <alek_s> so everybody knows just by looking on this file who is workiing on what for this release (and what os left)
[10:52] <sanjiva> and all bugs thru bugzilla
[10:52] <alek_s> how does it sound?
[10:53] <nirmal> sounds good, I agree we should work better with changes.txt and RELEASE_TASKS.txt
[10:53] <Hesham> sounds good to me
[10:54] <alek_s> i think that AXIS ond other project when doing release explicitly decide which bugs must be fixed for release (not *all* bugs must be fixes)
[10:54] <antElder> bad
[10:54] <alek_s> i hope we get current list of bugs by tomorrow in RELEASE_PLAN.txt that needs to be fixed before final relelase
[10:54] <nirmal> I will back out my service factory change until everybody is ok with it
[10:54] <alek_s> Ant: waht is bad?
[10:56] <antElder> could we have 1 more vote with people choosing a position not saying either way?
[10:56] <antElder> quickly
[10:56] <antElder> +1 beta2
[10:57] <antElder> then I'll be quiet
[10:57] <owenb> In that case +1 for beta2
[10:58] <nirmal> Ant hold on now, what is your issue with an RC1? let me reiterate: do you not think WSIF code is product quality? I understand there are outstanding issues - there always will be!
[10:58] <antElder> its getting late, could we just vote?
[11:00] <alek_s> +1 to RC1 and getting WSIF code out so we ge tmore involvement from outside ...
[11:00] <nirmal> +1 to RC1
[11:00] <alek_s> -1 to beta2 - i think we have working relelase even if not perfect iti s good enough to use and gather feedback
[11:01] <antElder> there's a few commiters yet to vote. No one will mind what you choose:)
[11:01] <nirmal> -1 to beta2
[11:01] <sanjiva> +1 to RC1
[11:02] <Hesham> +1 to RC1
[11:02] <piotrp> +1 to RC1 provided changes are possible after Jan 6th
[11:03] <Hesham> u took the words right out of my mouth Piotr :)
[11:04] <piotrp> and yes, we think wsif is product quality and there will always be bugs to fix
[11:04] <alek_s> (chnages are always possible and even required - you just want to postpone disruptive changes to when work on next release is started)
[11:04] <alek_s> but *please* all chnages and tasks you work on must be in RELEASE_PLAN.txt
[11:05] <alek_s> so we knwo where we are - what is left till final relelease
[11:05] <antElder> I guess I shouldn't ask again to restructre the dist to be like all the other apache projects?
[11:06] <alek_s> Ant: i do not thinkall project are the smae evn apapche: did you look on forrest layout - it has subdirectories in lib too
[11:06] <piotrp> why not?
[11:06] <alek_s> and i would think they soon will have more a sthey have lot of jar files there ...
[11:07] <alek_s> anyway i did it to *simplify* maintenance when we (and users) have to deal with lot of jar file and do not knwo how they are related (so i put related jar files in the same directory)
[11:08] <piotrp> so you could rollback this changes?
[11:08] <alek_s> and what version are jar files (so i added verion numbers), what is license (each jar is accompanied by LICENSE) and how to get updated verions (each directory with jar files has README with minimum pointing to URL where to get updated jar files and also any gotchas, notes etc.)
[11:09] <antElder> Last irc 3 of the 5 said they wanted it changed. But don't worry I wont push it here now
[11:09] <alek_s> what would be the reason to rollback it?
[11:09] <alek_s> just to make it looks like other projects?
[11:09] <antElder> I would like the nightly build to work, should I raise a bugzilla for that?
[11:09] <piotrp> yes, and it appears to have been voted on
[11:09] <alek_s> do u think any reason above as far as easy of use or maintenance is not good?
[11:10] <Hesham> lets have a quick show of hands of who wants to see the current dist structure changed to look like other projects, or leave it as is...
[11:10] <alek_s> i have also added script classpath.* to make easy to get all jar files into CLASSPATH ...
[11:10] <antElder> I'm scared to vote 1st now:)
[11:11] <Hesham> :)
[11:11] <antElder> +1 to like others
[11:11] <alek_s> before voting
[11:11] <piotrp> +1 to match others
[11:11] <Hesham> +1 like others
[11:11] <owenb> +1 for all jars to go in the lib dir
[11:11] <alek_s> i want ot hear _techical_ reasoins for putting everything in one lib directory!
[11:12] <antElder> to be standard, I couldn't find wsif.jar!
[11:12] <antElder> it was in a build dir not lib dir
[11:12] <alek_s> if the only reson is to make it look like *other* proejects it is very weak IMHO
[11:12] <alek_s> and not all other projects looks keep all filesin one lib anyway ...
[11:12] <antElder> so when you download src or bin you know what you'll get
[11:13] <alek_s> wsif.jar is built [11:13] <nirmal> frankly, does anybody prefer lib/common_logging_version.txt and lib/commons_logging_license.txt to lib/common_logging/version.txt and lib/common_logging/LICENSE.txt?
[11:13] <Hesham> because to the average newbie user, they won't know what jars are needed and where to pick them up.. having it all in one location reduces the initial barrier to understanding what we are delivering..
[11:13] <alek_s> location for it is seaprate from JAR files neede to build wsif.jar and providers i think ...
[11:13] <nirmal> if we put everything under lib, considering the number of dependencies, it will be a mess
[11:14] <antElder> there's still a few to vote...
[11:14] <alek_s> Hesham: all jar files you need both optional and required are described in each subdirectory of lib
[11:14] <alek_s> moreover we include all jar files we can in bin/all distributions and they are also in CVS
[11:15] <sanjiva> I generally like the single lib dir approach (like axis) but in this case the subdirs make sense IMO as there are SO MANY dependencies. Also, there are potential versioning issues that may almost require it.
[11:15] <alek_s> i *really* want to have technical resoans - saying that it makes it easuier for users is good reason!
[11:16] <alek_s> WSIF has many depenencie on other linarries (as it builts on top of them) so you need soem way to control what JAR files should be included and what versions IMHO
[11:16] <alek_s> putting everything in one directory will not help ...
[11:17] <alek_s> moreover i can easily add ant task to copy all jar files to one lib directory
[11:17] <Rob> At this point I would suggest that this kind of change should be slated for the following release of WSIF.
[11:17] <piotrp> but that would be a reason for all in lib directory
[11:17] <alek_s> but i would like to keep them seaprate for maintenance
[11:17] <Rob> ...and not for RC1.
[11:18] <alek_s> if you want to build only select providers you need a way to select onl depenednt jar files
[11:18] <Hesham> oh no.... back to the first question then.. can we make a change like this after RC1? :)
[11:18] <piotrp> I would assume yes
[11:18] <alek_s> moreover there cna be in future verions conflicts: for example if one provider will need older verion of jar file but other provider uses newer version ...
[11:18] <Hesham> so would I.. just making sure...
[11:19] <alek_s> and yes: we can make changes (we can do whatever we decide)
[11:19] <alek_s> i just want to see good arguments - i am quite easy then to convince :-)
[11:20] <piotrp> I don't buy the last argument at all - in the server environment you may not be able to give each provider different version of the dependency, you need to make them match.
[11:20] <Rob> This is something that is not broken at this point so let's not fix it now. It may need to be redesigned but that should be slated for a future release. Don't get bogged down on this one.
[11:21] <alek_s> Rob: i thin it is broken already [11:22] <piotrp> That seems to be something we want done before the final release in Jan
[11:22] <alek_s> Rob: it took me some time to get all depeendent files - now you can just check README files and you knwo where to get all pieces including optional depenendencies
[11:22] <alek_s> i think we should be finsihing?
[11:22] <Rob> I agree. Leave it as is.
[11:22] <alek_s> here is list of things i wrote down:
[11:23] <antElder> was there avote count on this?
[11:23] <piotrp> how about the vote?
[11:23] <alek_s> * RC1 on friday and necxt RC releases later final releease in mid-January)
[11:24] <alek_s> did everybody used build scripts and looked on lib layout, checked README etc?
[11:25] <antElder> i see 4 votes to all in lib
[11:26] <alek_s> will moving everything to one lib directory make it easier for users?
[11:26] <alek_s> remaining things form today IRC:
[11:26] <alek_s> * RC1 on friday and necxt RC releases later final releease in mid-January) [11:26] <alek_s> * keep updating lis tof changes in doc (including new additions, bug fixes etc.)! [11:26] <alek_s> * _all_ pending tasks for final release and RCs must be in RELEASE_TASK.txt - anybody waorking on releease should put there what is happening (including bug fixes) [11:26] <alek_s> * maybe aslo remove some of "high priority" tasks as nobody signed for them (or seems to be working on them ...) [11:26] <alek_s> * Happy Hollidays! [11:27] <alek_s> should anything be added to this list?
[11:27] <alek_s> Ant: if you feel that strongly go ahead and remove all subdirs [11:27] <alek_s> i think it will make building and iusing WSIF much harder but well ...
[11:27] <Hesham> Happy Holidays everyone!
[11:28] <antElder> right, well i'm off on holiday in a few hours so i doubt i'll have time
[11:28] <alek_s> TASK: Ant: to move all jar files to one lib directory
[11:28] <alek_s> as of vi=oting
[11:28] <alek_s> -1: obviously as i was advocating this split of jar file into subdirectories :-)
[11:29] <Rob> May I suggest a vote on moving this task, if deemed necessary, to post RC1.
[11:29] <alek_s> i want ot see everybody vote (if you have no opinion use +0) and i want to see actual motivation!
[11:30] <alek_s> Rob: that will depend on Ant - i am essentially leaving it to him
[11:30] <alek_s> but i wan to see what *everybody* think about it!
[11:31] <owenb> +1 for having all jars in the lib dir for the final release. +0 for changing it for RC1
[11:31] <piotrp> Rob, RC is tomorrow so it would have to be in Jan
[11:32] <piotrp> +1 for jars in one directory for final release, +0 for RC1
[11:32] <Rob> Precisely my point, RC is tomorrow, why to unnecessary code churn?
[11:32] <Hesham> +1 for jars in one directory for final release, +0 for RC1
[11:32] <alek_s> piotrp: could you give what is rationale?
[11:32] <antElder> well as its down to me and i'm away and rc1 is tomorrow it snot going to happen is it
[11:32] <antElder> I'm back on the 27th
[11:33] <alek_s> so then it is schedlued for next RC
[11:33] <piotrp> yes
[11:33] <alek_s> if anybody has not yet looked on build scripts and used them including classpath.* please try!!!!
[11:33] <alek_s> sshould we have next IRC chat on Mon Dec. 30?
[11:34] <Hesham> since it is after RC1 then we can take the discussion of why/or why not to put all in lib directory to some other time, or offline..
[11:34] <antElder> ok, but lets no forget theres been a vote on 2 irc's now saying all in 1 lib
[11:34] <piotrp> Most of us are away until Jan 6th, so how about Jan 6th for a IRC chat?
[11:35] <Hesham> fyi... I will be on holiday from Dec 25 -Jan12... and I'll only have intermittent internet access.
[11:35] <nirmal> just for the record I vote -1 for a flat lib dir
[11:35] <antElder> that would suit me better to
[11:35] <owenb> +1 for 6th Jan :-)
[11:35] <nirmal> ok, 6 Jan sounds fine
[11:35] <alek_s> i would lie to have chat before next release
[11:35] <nirmal> Also let me just bring up one mor epoint: I think we should discourage voting as much as possible and instead build consensus
[11:35] <alek_s> i will be gone from Jan 1sr until 10th ...
[11:36] <piotrp> what is the next release date then?
[11:37] <nirmal> let's aim for Jan 13?
[11:37] <nirmal> Also, can everyone update RELEASE_TASKS with things they would like to have in the release today itself?
[11:38] <alek_s> Jan. 13 is Monday - next release Monday or Tuesday then
[11:38] <nirmal> i.e. before leaving for vacation
[11:38] <piotrp> Ok, what about final release?
[11:38] <alek_s> simply: if it is not in RELEASE_PLAN.txt it should not be in release (!!!!)
[11:39] <antElder> lets see how rc1 goes, but mid Jan sounds good
[11:39] *** Signoff: whitlock (Read error: EOF from client)
[11:39] <antElder> but, if we have commited many changes we need an rc2 really?
[11:39] <Hesham> I'm in agreement...
[11:40] <owenb> sounds good
[11:40] <alek_s> please review and tell me what is missing from this lis tof actions:
[11:40] <alek_s> * next IRC chat on Moday Jan 13th - we keep discussing about release on mailing list [11:40] <alek_s> * RC1 on friday and necxt RC releases later final releease in mid-January shortly after Mon 13) [11:40] <alek_s> * TASK to keep discussing best build structure and how to make it easy - also tentatively Ant in next RC2 will move all jar files to one lib directory [11:40] <alek_s> * keep updating list tof changes in doc (including new additions, bug fixes etc.)! [11:40] <alek_s> * _all_ pending tasks for final release and RCs must be in RELEASE_TASK.txt - anybody waorking on releease should put there what is happening (including bug fixes) [11:40] <alek_s> * maybe aslo remove some of "high priority" tasks as nobody signed for them (or seems to be working on them ...) [11:40] <alek_s> * Happy Hollidays! [11:40] <nirmal> yes I agree that the last RC should be *identical* to the final release, so if we commit changes we need a new RC
[11:40] <antElder> but i'd be happy for that to have no changes for a day or 2 and become the final
[11:40] <piotrp> Alek, where is RELEASE_PLAN.txt
[11:40] <alek_s> iti s in CVS in doc/ subdirectory
[11:41] <alek_s> piotrp: it would be great if you could write down what is needed/panned for JCA for this release [11:41] <antElder> fix nightly build
[11:41] <piotrp> I will, but it just is more samples, no code change unless there is a bug found
[11:42] <alek_s> Ant and Piotr: please add to RELEASE_PLAN :-)
[11:42] <alek_s> ASAP!!!!
[11:42] <antElder> I wont have time to add eveything i'd like till after the 27th
[11:43] <antElder> is that ok?
[11:43] <alek_s> Ant: so please put in RELEASE_PLAN what you think will be in release
[11:43] <alek_s> Ant: there is also section in RELEASE_PLAN for next release so add iother things to be done later there [11:44] <antElder> ok
[11:44] <alek_s> i am afraid but we may get to this situation thay if something is not in RELEASE_PLAN it *must not* be in RCs!!!
[11:45] <alek_s> otherwise we have no idea what is happening :-(
[11:46] <Rob> Happy Holidays all!
[11:46] <alek_s> should i add any new points to list of tasks from this chat i have pasted above?
[11:47] <piotrp> Alek, is RELEASE_TASK.txt and RELEASE_PLAN.txt the same file? I am browsing cvs and cannot find RELEASE_PLAN.txt
[11:47] *** Rob has left #wsif
[11:47] <owenb> Happy holidays everyone
[11:47] *** owenb has left #wsif
[11:48] <alek_s> Piotr: this is the same file!!!!
[11:49] <piotrp> ok
[11:50] <alek_s> Piotr: do not be timid editing it - it is in CVS so we can see all chnages and revert back if needed!
[11:51] <piotrp> it's ok, I will. I thought you split it to separate plan (dates) and tasks...
[11:51] <piotrp> ok, I think we are done, Happy Holidays everyone
[11:51] <alek_s> tasks are jsut what we agreed on IRC [11:51] *** Signoff: piotrp (Read error: EOF from client)
[11:53] <antElder> I've got to run, speak to you all after the 27th...
[11:53] <alek_s> i will post chat log to axis-dev
[11:53] <alek_s> and listof tasks
[11:54] <alek_s> let me knwo if we need to change something [11:54] <alek_s> and let keep discussing about best build system for WSIF including lib/subdirs
[11:56] <alek_s> thanks to everybody for attending!!!!!

--
"Mr. Pauli, we in the audience are all agreed that your theory is crazy. What divides us is whether it is crazy enough to be true." Niels H. D. Bohr