BTW, thanks for the link and for sharing your vision.
Quite interesting. Definitely need to find time to have a look deeper.

JLouis

2012/6/7 dsh <[email protected]>

> Justin Erenkrantz ‏just tweeted this:
>
> Jonathan Aldrich's ArchJava receives the Most Influential Paper from
> ICSE 2002 here in #icse2012. I recall sitting in that talk in Orlando!
>
> http://archjava.fluid.cs.cmu.edu/
>
> And that really convinces me that my hypothesis that "maintenance" as
> we know it does not exist and thus is a complete misconception proofs
> right. Production and the related miss-conceptual term "maintenance"
> need to be eliminated from our collective understanding and instead
> need to be replaced by a way of thinking where production really is an
> extension to the development lifecycle and thus has the ability to (a)
> provide instant & constant feedback back into your development
> lifecycle and (b) provides a means of validation your architecture
> incl requirements during runtime and have change strategies asserted
> where applicable. Thus production becomes a 1st class citizen of
> application lifecycle management. That subject is exactly one part of
> the proposal for a Ph.D project I am working on since early 2012 :)
>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:16 PM, dsh <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Well I suggest to avoid the term "maintenance" because it triggers all
> > sorts of association in my brain each having a negative connotation. I
> > for myself think the definition of "stable" in the OSS domain is
> > pretty clear, it means it's supposedly well tested and thus probably
> > suitable to be rolled out in a production environment (trying to be
> > conservative here) where "development" on the other hand is the
> > contrary but provides you with bleeding edge features to help you to
> > get a feeling where the current development efforts are heading
> > towards.
> >
> > Maintenance on the other hand is a term heavily "abused" by big
> > companies and it is associated with retro-style thinking where you
> > role out a release (knowingly it contains bugs & shortcomings) to make
> > profit out of that leftover bugs by "maintaining" a well defined
> > fixture process that would allow you to gain profit out of providing a
> > fixture for each bug and shortcomings of your software. And that's
> > exactly the reason why I don't like the term "maintenance" especially
> > in regards to OSS development because I am certainly convince we OSS
> > folks can do better in this regards e.g. our way of thinking should be
> > forward looking incl. heavily anticipating change instead of
> > retro-style thinking where your focus lies on "maintaining" the status
> > quo  :)
> >
> > Cheers
> > Daniel
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> that looks great.
> >> Just one point, at least for me.
> >>
> >> The difference from stable to development is not clear.
> >>
> >> I would have prefer something like "maintenance release" and
> "development
> >> branch" or so.
> >>
> >> Jean-Louis
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/6/7 David Blevins <[email protected]>
> >>
> >>> Put together a little system to make it easy to get at our builds from
> >>> Buildbot on Nexus.
> >>>
> >>>  http://openejb.apache.org/builds.html
> >>>
> >>> We can also push builds via the openejb-bot on irc with the command
> >>>
> >>>  openejb-bot: force build openejb-trunk-deploy
> >>>
> >>> Or
> >>>
> >>>  openejb-bot: force build openejb-4-stable-deploy
> >>>
> >>> Should help us deliver fixes and get people to try them out a bit
> quicker.
> >>>
> >>> Each build page is also hooked up with Google Analytics so we should be
> >>> able to see what kind of demand is there.
> >>>
> >>> This page isn't linked to anywhere on the site yet.  Do want to put it
> >>> somewhere, the downloads page perhaps?
> >>>
> >>> Feel free to add links for more stuff that can be downloaded from
> Nexus.
> >>>  The URL format is pretty obvious and can pull anything from the
> >>> org.apache.openejb groupId.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -David
> >>>
> >>>
>

Reply via email to