Eddie, I've made the changes to add the license and notice files to the beehive jars. Looked like both Struts and Ant placed these files in META-INF of their jars so I did the same.
Anything else I can do before we create / sign a release package? Thanks, Carlin On 11/3/06, Carlin Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eddie, Yes, that helps. Thanks for the reply as well as the feedback on my earlier questions about the docs. Carlin On 11/3/06, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Carlin-- > > Seems like that change should be removed as well because it was a > step along the way to the partial data set support in trunk. The > PagedDataSet class changed more from that SVN version. > > Probably best to go back to before that work started. > > HTH. > Eddie > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eddie, > > > > I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid > > features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you > > did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150, > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to > > leave that in? > > > > Thanks, > > Carlin > > > > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hey Eddie, > > > > > > I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the > > > release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions > > > about some other files... > > > > > > - doap_Beehive.rdf - I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just > > > modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we roll > > > out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove > > > some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a > > > subproject? > > > > > > - docs/maven-support.txt - is this just a readme text file and > > > should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc? > > > > > > - POMs - looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct? > > > > > > I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait > > > until the release to update these. > > > > > > I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch. > > > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > Carlin > > > > > > On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also > > > > happy to help if that makes it easier for you. > > > > > > > > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as well. > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Carlin > > > > > > > > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Sure -- that'd definitely help. As my slow replies probably > > > > > indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been > > > > > super-active recently. > > > > > > > > > > There are several tasks that need to happen for release: > > > > > > > > > > - branching > > > > > - remove incomplete data grid features in branch > > > > > - update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs > > > > > - create / sign release package > > > > > - vote on release package > > > > > - publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation > > > > > > > > > > I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday > > > > > and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that. If > > > > > you'd like to get started before then, take it away. :) > > > > > > > > > > One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE > > > > > files in all of our JARs. My reading of this: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html > > > > > > > > > > indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects > > > > > are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside > > > > > the context of the distribution package. I'd be in favor of doing > > > > > this work. > > > > > > > > > > Eddie > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hey Eddie, > > > > > > > > > > > > I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes, > > > > > > if that would help. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in > > > > > > the dev community should/could be doing? > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Carlin > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of > > > > > > > changes to revert. AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants > > > > > > > to volunteer. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing > > > > > > > unfinished and unfrozen APIs. This means that the APIs could change > > > > > > > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such > > > > > > > features, and this doesn't seem desirable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as > > > > > > > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My $0.02. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > How much work would there be in option #1? > > > > > > > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that > > > > > > > > either option would work. > > > > > > > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have > > > > > > > > time rather than rushing. > > > > > > > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to > > > > > > > > the rest of the community? > > > > > > > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping > > > > > > > > this incomplete feature might be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Eddie, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for > > > > > > > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just > > > > > > > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or > > > > > > > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hm -- a new release would be great except... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data > > > > > > > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet. Some options: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2 > > > > > > > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2 > > > > > > > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me... > > > > > > > > > > > > Rich > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me. We've fixed a lot of bugs -- > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs > > > > > > > > > fixed > > > > > > > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > them APT related). Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > been addressed as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > release at this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Chad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive release. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along with > > > > > > > > > a few > > > > > > > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This includes > > > > > > > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes as > > > > > > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release ( > > > > > > > > > 1.0.2) > > > > > > > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where thinking > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Carlin > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
