On 8/27/07, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Salikh Zakirov wrote: > > Tim Ellison wrote: > >> Agreed, and the problems with getting a JCK license to certify official > >> releases have been well-documented. We want to release a Java > >> implementation, not something that is not quite Java. > > > > Somehow I cannot understand how the "official" status of the release > > is related to the "certification with JCK" status. > > The 'official' goal of the project is to create Java SE, and the only > way to do that is to pass the corresponding JCK. > > > I understand the desire of releasing certified 1.0 (or is it 5.0?) > > version, however, I cannot see why alpha or beta releases should > > not be done before JCK certification. > > When we pass the JCK for 5.0 we can call the result Java SE 5.0, we > wouldn't use 1.0.
Tim, It's Java SE 5.0, but it's not necessarily Harmony 5.0. I see no problem to call it Harmony 1.0 (or else) when it passes JCK for 5.0. As a software project, I think Harmony deserves its own versioning scheme. It it a little bit uncomfortable to see M3, M4, ..., M100, then see a 5.0. Current Mx naming scheme is hard to get an impression on the project status. Thanks, xiaofeng > We are producing builds milestone towards that goal, but the > certification is all or nothing. > > > Careful reading of Apache licensing policy [1] says that this is the > > sort of decision done by PMC. > > The PMC are all on this list, though with summer vacations etc. things > are quiet. > > > However, it also says that anything > > with non-released status should not be advertised outside of the mailing > > list (i.e. on the web site), and therefore, should not be packaged > > for end-users (i.e. Debian or Gentoo packages). > > > > Thus, I understand what you are saying as "we should not yet advertise > > ourselves > > outside of our mailing list". This is exactly opposite of my opinion, that > > Harmony project need to start recruiting beta-testers (alpha-testers?) > > in a wider audience. > > I agree that we should be recruiting further testers and early adopters. > They are most likely to be developers on other significant Java > projects, and in fairness we have been very responsive to them. Feel > free to try some apps and discuss the results. > > > This is also in contradiction with the fact of stable builds being announced > > on the web site. > > <shrug/> We have enough warnings and caveats on there. > > > What I am suggesting, is > > (1) come up with a stable versioning scheme (FWIW, M1 has happened to DRLVM > > twice already), > > It did? > > > (2) decide if the current status is alpha or beta > > Alpha or beta towards what? We cal them development snapshots which is > what they are. > > > (3) release the next stable snapshot officially (following all the > > requirements [1]) > > with either of alpha and beta status > > and all necessary notices about non-compatibility and non-certified > > status. > > (4) remove the "they are not official releases of the Apache Harmony > > project" notices > > from the download page. > > (5) and finally, encourage (rather than discourage) including these alpha > > releases > > to "unstable" areas of the popular Linux distributions > > That's a proposal to bring into a wider forum (e.g. jcp-open@) since you > are suggesting that the ASF endorse a Java look-alike runtime. The > ASF/Sun/JCP discussions are attempting to resolve whether we Sun will > honor their promise to provide a suitable license. > > > PMC may as well disagree with this suggestion, but it would be nice to hear > > where exactly > > disagreement lies: > > You may get more responses as people catch-up with their mail... > > > (a) if Harmony project should not seek for a wider tester base? > > I think we should, and we are. > > > (b) if Harmony project should not encourage packaging for distributions? > > again, we should and we are, > > > (c) if Harmony project should not do uncertified alpha and beta releases? > > we have the stable milestones for testing and early adopters. As above, > I don't know how you would declare alpha or beta status against a set of > criteria we don't have access to at the moment. > > Regards, > Tim > > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what > > > > quote from Apache Releases FAQ [1] > >> During the process of developing software and preparing a release, > >> various packages are made available to the developer community for testing > >> purposes. > >> Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage > >> non-developers > >> to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any > >> other > >> similar package. The only people who are supposed to know about such > >> packages are > >> the people following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus > >> aware > >> of the conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general > >> public > >> are downloading such test packages, then remove them. > > > > > > > > > -- http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
