On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Dan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not sure if the docs are a prerequisite for graduation. I don't think > there are specific requirements about the level of documentation for > graduation, just about community involvement - which docs could help > encourage :) > I think this is a grey area with the user docs being on a vendor site. Theres a requirement that "every podling site sources should be maintained in the podling's site SVN or git directory"[1]. Clearly geode meets this to the letter of the law and I've seen other projects websites point to external resources that are useful. Since theres a plan to donate them at some point, my guess is it wouldn't be an issue. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html > In any case we don't need to graduate or even be graduation ready to > release 1.0. The version number 1.0 has no special meaning to the ASF as > far as I can tell. But I think having regular releases and having an > official non-milestone release will help us grow the community. > A release without a milestone/alpha/beta qualifier is going to indicate this community thinks its ready for serious use - so while you're right from a ASF perspective, it will have a special meaning for the wider geode community. And while keeping the existing package names makes the transition easier for existing gemfire users, a package rename in a later version will add pain to the new vast(hopefully!) user base for geode. So I would say do it now rather than later. However, if you're going to change the package name, then its also a good time to remove any deprecated features and correct/change any API's that you're not 100% happy with - which may be alot more work than just changing the package name. Niall > > This page has some information on what's required for graduation: > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements > > -Dan > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Dave Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We plan at some point to donate the docs so they'll be incorporated into > > the repo. Is this a prerequisite to graduating from incubation? > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Kirk Lund <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The package renaming would most likely break some backwards > compatibility > > > between 1.0 and 2.0. I'd prefer to see the packages get renamed before > > 1.0 > > > so we can change the packages of Message classes, etc in the same > release > > > that introduces the new JGroups. > > > > > > The packages are currently a mess of com.gemstone.*, com.vmware.*, > > > joptsimple.*, org.json.* (would we change all four or just the > > > gemstone/vmware packages?). > > > > > > I'm probably biting off more than I should, but I'd be willing head up > > the > > > package renaming effort. > > > > > > I think maintaining backwards compatibility (rolling upgrades included) > > for > > > releases following Geode 1.0 is a definite requirement. I'd like to see > > the > > > other discussion thread about defining the Geode protocol(s) converge > > with > > > this thread. Officially defining the communication protocols (cluster, > > > client/server, etc) would ideally happen in conjunction with 1.0 so > that > > > it's concrete and less ambiguous for 2.0 and later releases. > > > > > > -Kirk > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Dan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > We've been releasing milestones of 1.0, but at some point we actually > > > have > > > > to release a real geode 1.0 :) > > > > > > > > What is keeping us from releasing geode 1.0 at this point? Just the > > > issues > > > > currently marked with Fix Version M3? I think we should nail down the > > > scope > > > > of 1.0 and track our progress to the 1.0 release. > > > > > > > > From the apache process perspective, I don't think 1.0 is any > different > > > > from the milestone releases we've done so far. The only difference > with > > > 1.0 > > > > is what it means to the geode community. > > > > > > > > Gemfire maintained backwards compatibility with previous releases for > > > > persistent files, client/server, WAN, and P2P messaging. I think once > > we > > > > release 1.0 we should provide that same guarantee that the next geode > > > > release will be backwards compatible with 1.0. > > > > > > > > We do still have the package renaming (GEODE-37) on the horizon. My > > > > suggestion is that in the interests of getting 1.0 out the door, at > > this > > > > point we should just release geode 1.0 with the old packages and > rename > > > > packages in geode 2.0. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > -Dan > > > > > > > > > >
