Given that Arnaud found a bad memory leak in the Aether/Guice version I think it would be good to get beta-2 out now without Aether/Guice
Then fix the leak and roll beta-3 as soon as the leak is fixed -Stephen On 6 August 2010 15:10, Jason van Zyl <ja...@sonatype.com> wrote: > > On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Brian Fox wrote: > > > 2010/8/5 Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@gmail.com>: > >> Ok, > >> > >> Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than > I'm doing :-) ) > >> > >> Could we have a consensus if we : > >> - release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that > we'll have a solid base to compare future changes with. We know it is stable > and it is better than beta 1 (it solves some issues like for the site plugin > and also in // builds). If the vote is called now we can deliver it to users > for Monday. > >> - just after the beta2 release we merge changes required for Aether and > Guice and we start the release process for a beta 3 we'll deliver at the end > of next week. > > > > mvn:release prepare release:perform takes at most 30 minutes so I > > don't see any harm in firing them both out there. > > > > Other then it being highly confusing to the general user base. We have > beta-2 and then three days later trying to message making two drastic > changes and releasing it again. Also what this entails is that if someone > does report a problem with the container or artifact resolution it will have > to be addressed in beta-3 anyway. If we're going to release a beta-2 that is > effectively not going to be support I don't see much value in that. Also > between Stuart, Benjamin, Igor, and myself anything in the container and > resolution level will get fixed quickly. > > Why don't you just try the site plugin with the branch with Aether and > Guice and make sure it works? I think taking the time to make sure those > changes work is better then dealing with the WTF responses from users when > we drop two betas out in the course of three days. The vast majority of > users are not using 3.0-beta-1 and so I don't think the average user cares > that a the site plugin doesn't work. I would prefer we delay a single decent > beta of what we are ultimately going to ship. > > It's not hard to spin out two releases, but it's just harder to manage > because when issues come flying in we're dealing with two completely > different animals. People are unlikely to specify the right version and > we're just going to have a lot more busy work then necessary. > > Let's make one good release wait a week and push out what we actually plan > to support. > > I personally think dropping out two betas that are completely different in > the span of 3 days is just totally confusing for users and not the tone we > want to set building up to the release of 3.0. > > >> > >> With that we'll try to receive feedback from users and we'll easily > validate if problems are related to Guice or Aether by comparing results > with both versions. > >> At the end of the month we can push out a new beta with all fixes we'll > have. It will be always possible to decide to remove Aether if some of you > have a better solution or aren't satisfied by the change (I would prefer to > have done that in an alpha releases cycle but now we are in beta we cannot > come back in rear). > >> > >> WDYT ? I think it is important to push out new releases to show to our > community that we are always active and we are going in the good direction. > >> > >> Arnaud > >> > >> > >> On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:06 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> Some very important questions have been asked regarding Jason's > >>> proposal. I usually let my first impressions sink in a bit before I > >>> reply. That often help to make my comments more about the facts and > less > >>> about the feelings, and we've seen a lot of feelings in this thread. > >>> > >>> The first thing I would like to happen is that we release 3.0-beta-2 > >>> *without* merging the proposed code. There are two reasons for this. > >>> > >>> 1. The Site Plugin, which most of you know is something that I've > worked > >>> quite a lot on, is currently in limbo. On one hand we have the stable > >>> 2.x trunk of the plugin which works with Maven 2, but not with Maven 3. > >>> We also have a 3.0-SNAPSHOT branch of the plugin, thanks to Olivier and > >>> Hervé. But that currently don't work with any released version of Maven > >>> because of a bug in Maven 3.0-beta-1. In order to gain momentum and > >>> field testing for Maven Site Plugin 3.0 it needs a stable version of > >>> Maven to work with. There are too few people working on the Site > Plugin, > >>> and if it needs to be rewritten yet again there is a risk that it will > >>> never be ready. > >>> > >>> 2. Release early, release often. Give the users a choice here. They can > >>> choose to use Maven 3.0-beta-2 which will work much like beta-1 did, > but > >>> with lots of bugs fixed. Or a few weeks later they can use 3.0-beta-3 > >>> the proposed code changes merged in. If the new stuff doesn't work, for > >>> whatever reason, they can switch back to beta-2 while they wait for a > >>> bug fixed beta-4. > >>> > >>> As for they proposed code bases I am not qualified to make detailed > >>> comments, so my comments will be very high level. > >>> > >>> > >>> Guice > >>> > >>> IIUC this means that we would replace one (external) IOC container with > >>> another (external) IOC container. If the bar for being allowed to > >>> participate in the development of Guice is at the same level as it has > >>> been for Plexus, then I have no problem with this switch. > >>> > >>> I am +1 on integrating the Guice code after beta-2 has been released. > >>> > >>> > >>> Aether > >>> > >>> One thing that I really think has been successful here at Maven has > been > >>> when we have set up proper APIs that abstracts the implementation and > >>> let the users pick a suitable implementation for their needs. Two > >>> subprojects come to mind: SCM and Wagon. > >>> > >>> If the API part of Aether is anything like that, then that's a good > >>> thing in my book. I haven't looked at the code, only the high level > >>> presentation, but I have high confidence in those who have worked on > it. > >>> Having the API hosted outside of Apache is fine by me if it means that > >>> more projects will use it. The more the merrier. > >>> > >>> When it comes to the implementation I'm undecided. It does mean that we > >>> will make an integral part of Maven external, which can lead to > problems > >>> with issue tracking etc, as pointed out by others. On the other hand it > >>> makes sense to use the collective knowledge of the people who is > >>> responsible for the API, to also work together on implementations. > >>> Perhaps the Maven repository implementation can be moved back to the > >>> Maven project, when things have settled down. > >>> > >>> I am +0 on integrating Aether after beta-2 has been released. I'll let > >>> others with more insights decide. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2010-08-03 20:21, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> We have two major pieces that we, Sonatype, would like to merge into > Maven 3.x trunk. > >>>> > >>>> The first are the Guice changes that we've been talking about for a > while, and the second is the introduction of Aether which is our second > attempt at a stand-alone repository API. The PMC is aware of Aether as Brian > reported it in our quarterly report to the Apache Board, but other > developers who are not on the PMC and the community in general might not > know much about it. > >>>> > >>>> I just posted an entry giving a very high level description: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.sonatype.com/people/2010/08/introducing-aether/ > >>>> > >>>> There is a resources section at the bottom of the post for those > interested in the sources, issue tracking, wiki and mailing lists. As part > of some of the research we are about to embark on with Daniel Le Berre, > Aether will likely look more like p2 as time passes and as a final resting > place the Eclipse Foundation is more likely then Apache. I know people will > ask so I'm answering that now. Sonatype is just about to fully move Tycho > over the Eclipse Foundation and we want to see how that goes. If that works, > then M2Eclipse is next, and then Aether will follow. > >>>> > >>>> At any rate we would like to merge these changes in and make plans to > release 3.0-beta-2. > >>>> > >>>> So please let us know if you have any objections. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Jason > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> Jason van Zyl > >>>> Founder, Apache Maven > >>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> First, the taking in of scattered particulars under one Idea, > >>>> so that everyone understands what is being talked about ... Second, > >>>> the separation of the Idea into parts, by dividing it at the joints, > >>>> as nature directs, not breaking any limb in half as a bad carver > might. > >>>> > >>>> -- Plato, Phaedrus (Notes on the Synthesis of Form by C. Alexander) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Dennis Lundberg > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > --------------------------------------------------------- > > We all have problems. How we deal with them is a measure of our worth. > > -- Unknown > > > >
