Did Kirk's note about package renaming make the M3 scope? I think it would be great to start Geode's 1.0 on a consistent naming standard. :)
Pro-Geode!!! Brian - Sent from my iPhone > On May 3, 2016, at 6:09 PM, Anthony Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > William, > > What do you think about including these in M3? > > GEODE-612 Update Jackson version since current version is not on Maven > central > GEODE-1028 Broken website link > GEODE-1191 HDFS references > GEODE-1133 SeparateClassloaderTestRunner > GEODE-1260 Source distribution version info > > Anthony > > >> On May 3, 2016, at 3:49 PM, William Markito <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Guys, restarting this thread to get a discussion going about M3, 1.0.0 and >> next - As the release manager for M3 here is what I'd like to propose. >> >> Any feedback is welcome and let's also reuse this thread to talk a little >> bit about roadmap as well ? >> >> # Current M3 Scope ( >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/1.0.0-incubating.M3+Release >> ) >> >> GEODE-33 >> GEODE-823 >> GEODE-835 >> GEODE-919 >> GEODE-1146 >> GEODE-1168 >> GEODE-1203 >> GEODE-1259 >> GEODE-1278 >> GEODE-1293 >> GEODE-1316 >> GEODE-1256 >> GEODE-1267 >> >> == Proposed scope & roadmap == >> >> I'd like to breakdown the release a little bit and already start planning >> the next releases. >> >> # Geode 1.0.0-incubating M3 >> >> GEODE-1316 Update @since tags to include GemFire or Geode in the version >> name >> GEODE-1293 Align code and docs for modules >> GEODE-1278 AbstractPeerTXRegionStub should throw >> TransactionDataNodeHasDeparted when remote cache is closed >> GEODE-1267 NOTICE file improvements >> GEODE-1256 Geode website - Unapproved licenses >> GEODE-1203 gfsh connect --use-http reports a ClassNotFoundException >> GEODE-919 GEODE-823 Remove checksums from .asc files (asc.md5, asc.sha1) >> GEODE-835 Replace joptsimple source with a binary dependency >> GEODE-823 RC Feedback: Fix build artifacts >> GEODE-33-1 Create project examples >> >> # Geode 1.0.0-incubating >> >> GEODE-33-2 Create project examples >> GEODE-1331 gfsh.bat on Windows is incorrect >> GEODE-1168 geode-dependencies manifest is missing jars that are present in >> the lib directory >> GEODE-629 Replace use of org.json with Jackson JSON library >> GEODE-607 the offheap package needs better unit test coverage >> GEODE-136 Fix possible NullPointerException in Gfsh's 'list regions' >> command's GetRegionsFunction. >> >> # Geode 1.X.0-incubating >> >> GEODE-17 Provide Integrated Security >> GEODE-11 Lucene Integration >> GEODE-33-3 Create project examples >> >> # Geode 2.0.0-incubating >> >> GEODE-72 Remove deprecated APIs from Geode >> GEODE-37 Package renaming >> --------------------------- >> >> Comments: >> >> GEODE-33 would be broken into 3 different tasks, where on M3 we would start >> with the example structure and a few examples, and incrementally add more >> examples in the next releases. >> >> GEODE-37 is the package rename which due to the huge effort in testing and >> with the goal to complete the removal of deprecated API's (GEODE-72 and >> it's sub-tasks) would be pushed to 2.0. This would also allow faster >> releases in 1.0.0 series. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Niall Pemberton <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ~/William >
