I totally agree but in my estimation this operation requires at least one or
two weeks of work and we haven't agreed yet on the format of the
documentation and what are the required launchers. We're already in RC2,
can't we just make the release with the samples as they are now (without the
ones that are broken and can't be fixed in a reasonable amount of time)?
After this we can spin beta3 and start working on samples based on what we
agree meanwhile.

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Simon Laws <simonsl...@googlemail.com>wrote:

> > I think we're in violent agreement here!  Let's pick a small and
> > useful set of high-quality samples to include in the release, then
> > make sure (by automated tests as far as possible) that these samples
> > continue to work in future releases.  All other samples would go
> > somewhere else in svn (unreleased/samples?) which would be much more
> > of a mixed bag.  Newly created samples would be added to the mixed bag.
> >
> > In future major releases, we could (if we want to) take carefully
> > chosen samples out of the mixed bag and "promote" them to be added
> > to the release.  The reverse is also possible, where we could "retire"
> > a released sample that no longer seems to be serving much of a useful
> > purpose, by moving it from the released samples to the mixed bag.
> >
> >  Simon
> >
> >
>
> +1. I would add (as it's not clear to me from this thread) that we
> should complete those samples that we choose for this limited set.
>
> - they work
> - the are run automatically in the build so we can detect if they fail
> in the future
> - they can be run easily by the user, e.g.. simple run command, no
> need to compile first, usable from Eclipse ???
> - documentation is in place in the format that we ultimately want it
> to appear in
>
> We can then use this as the pattern for reintroducing whichever
> samples are deemed to be appropriate in the future.
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>

Reply via email to