Perhaps you might be interested in helping us fix some bugs or checking
the release documentation?
We're all just volunteers here, I've made attempts to identify the
source of the bug and lack the time needed to figure it out. Patricia
has offered to help. Feel free to jump in and get your hands dirty. If
someone does have time to nut this one out, send me your public ssh key
& I'll set you up a user account.
Cheers,
Peter.
Jason Pratt wrote:
i am stating that the first "graduated" release should work for everyone
period. after that if you want to release with known bugs and reduce/not
support sparc or whatever other platform you in your infinite wisdom deem
irrelevant , great. river should have one release it can point at for anyone
wanting to try/use it.
regarding supporting systems, if ubuntu, amd, redhat, intel, apple, etc.
don't send you equipment and software to test on, are you going to drop
support for them as well? doesn't apache have these things internally? have
you asked?
you can be as antagonistic as you like, i deal with children everyday ;-)
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Dan Creswell <[email protected]> wrote:
Why should it be valid for everyone?
So far the conversation has mostly amounted to "save the SPARC user" at any
cost and that cost includes "penalise all other users".
Is that latter cost something we think we should be asserting? And for how
long?
Further, if those using SPARC can't lend us a box to test on, how serious
are they about their investment in River? Simply and brutally, they're not
supporting us (an opensource co-operative effort), why would we in turn
support them?
Last up, if we are to support these SPARC users and they won't provide the
kit, we have to obtain it and maintain it etc - how are we doing with that?
How well can we do that going forward?
My point overall then is that there's a balance and as yet, I don't see a
proper discussion about that balance just what would be ideal in a perfect
world.
Yeah, I am being a little antagonistic,
Dan.
On 1 April 2011 09:18, Jason Pratt <[email protected]> wrote:
sparc was a key architecture when jini was being promoted, maybe not so
much
now. however, at least for a graduation release it should be valid for
everyone sparc included. afterwards if justified it can be phased out.
antagonism aside, for its first release let give the masses something
that
works...
jason
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2011 5:41 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Jason Pratt<[email protected]>
wrote:
please don't release anything with failures. i've been a big fan/user
of
jini since it was released. now that it is alive again via river, a
good
release history will be key to success/survival
Assume for a second that the failure is related to the SPARC JVM
implementation; For how long do you intend us to hold off a release to
the other 99.9654% of the users, searching for a compatible way to
work around the problem?
Sometimes, "known bugs" are just that. The "unknown bugs" is in most
cases a longer list, and should that also hold off a release until we
find and correct them?
I hope I don't come across as too antagonistic... ;-) ... just want
to provide some perspective.
Here's a key question for the future. Are there users that need River
on
SPARC? Do we go on supporting it? Does anyone care enough to make a
SPARC development environment available?
Patricia
