On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I like the idea to build a new trunk from scratch for the 2.x stream > >> > (OASIS) > >> > and harvest things from the sca-equinox branch and 1.x branch (OSOA). > >> > > >> > Now we have reasonable parts covering items a, b, c, d on Sebstien's > >> > list. I > >> > see it as a good story for developers to develop Tuscany modules as > OSGi > >> > bundles with the help from Eclipse PDE. The missing feature is the > maven > >> > eclipse compiler doesn't report the OSGi violations yet. > >> > > >> > Should we start to branch off the current trunk into 1.4 branch as > >> > proposed > >> > at [1] as the first step? > >> > >> Let me handle the branching now. > >> I'd also like to propose we change the equinox branch "artifact > >> version" to avoid any conflicts with the 1.4 work... would > >> 2.0-snapshot work ? > >> > > > > That would be a change that needs to be voted on. Might be worth everyone > > reviewing the Rules For Revolutions. > > > > I was about to respond to my own e-mail, let me get it right : > > 1.Create a 1.4 branch from trunk (this is ok, and shouldn't be a big deal) > > 2.Empty trunk... I wasn't planning to do it now, and I guess this is > what you are suggesting to get it voted ? > > 3.Change the equinox branch artifact id (this should also be ok, right ?) > > > Anyway, I'd wait for more feedback on the thread. > > > > ...ant > > > > > > > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk > http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > I think there are advantages to starting afresh in trunk based on the assets that we already have, primarily that it gives us all the opportunity to feel involved in how Tuscany v2.0 will look and gives us the chance to provide just enough code but no more. Ant's right though we generally need to agree this is the right thing to do I'd want to see some focus on it and achieve quickly a base that can be built on. So we need to only do it if we are ready. There is no point in doing this and then seeing development continue on the Equinox branch in parallel (I do accept that developement will continue in 1.x as we have users that depend on that) We already have 230 odd open JIRA against the 1.x code base so I'd like to propose also that we take the opportunity to review those and align them with 2.x, 1.x or both and identify those issues that can be fixed as part of the process. I agree with Sebastien that there is a real process opportunity here. I.e. can we do this in a way that sets out a clear strategy (OASIS compliant SCA runtime?) and keeps everyone involved and up to speed with what I would hope turns out to be a fast moving but understandable code base. IMO we haven't been very good at this in the past. Simon
