Hi all,
Yes, I have just been wanting to chip away at the documentation - as the
various commits will attest.
Also, I can see both Rob and Kevin are steadily making improvements, so
there's ongoing work there, so didn't want to unnecessarily break the flow.
But I'm happy to put together a release if that's what people want.
What I propose is:
1. I'll just finish the core docs (should be done in next days or two)
2. make sure that the copyright and other stuff is ok for the remaining
modules
3. update the JIRAs so capture the fact that documentation for some of
the other modules is not complete (most notably, we only have a
placeholder for the default runtime [oai.runtimes:dflt] module).
4. I'll check-in with Rob and Kevin to make sure that we choose a
suitable point to take the tag.
Then I'll start looking into what makes up a release.
In terms of Mark's questions:
/1.) re-check the IP clearance. Especially our 3rd party/
/dependencies. Even an incubator release must meet our/
/license requirements. E.g. use specs from
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs//
/instead of any javax.* or org.hibernate.* maven artifacts. /
We won't have dependencies on org.hibernate, but we might be depending on some
javax. stuff. They should all be in isis-parent pom.xml, so perhaps someone
could take a look?
/2.) We better not need any 3rd party <repositories>.
If we have such a thing, then we should look if there are
any alternatives. That's no hard show stopper but generally
a good idea to look at
/
We do have a dependency in the restful view on JBoss, but that stuff is
all Apache license v2.
/3.) Go through all open jira issues and identify show
stopper issues.
/
I don't think there are any, but I'll check.
/4.) create a new isis-0.9.0 'Version' in Jira and move all
bugs to 'fixed in isis-0.9.0' in Jira.
/
I've been working on 0.1.2-SNAPSHOT, but I can rename to 0.9.0 if you
recommend it. I do actually have 0.2.0 and 0.3.0 releases planned with
some tickets assigned to them, but they can easily be renamed too if
required.
Cheers
Dan
~~~~~
On 22/04/2011 14:26, Kevin Meyer - KMZ wrote:
Hi Mark,
I get the impression that most of (Dan's) hesistation has been about
the documentation.. we don't want to lose potential interest because of
this..
Having said that, what do the people who have joined more recently
have to say? Sabine, Michael, Vangjel, etc?
Kevin
On 22 Apr 2011 at 9:56, Mark Struberg wrote:
Hi folks!
I peaked over the sources a little bit (still don't have
much clue) and it doesn't look that bad imo.
What about thinking off a new isis 0.9.0-incubating
release?
We did this 0.9 version scheme in a few other projects
which are already close to 1.0 to show it's not _yet_ 1.0
but already quite near.
The fact that we have a incubator release out there is
pretty important for the adoption rate sometimes.
WDYT?
This of course will need a bit of preparation:
1.) re-check the IP clearance. Especially our 3rd party
dependencies. Even an incubator release must meet our
license requirements. E.g. use specs from
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
instead of any javax.* or org.hibernate.* maven artifacts if
possible.
2.) We better not need any 3rd party<repositories>.
If we have such a thing, then we should look if there are
any alternatives. That's no hard show stopper but generally
a good idea to look at
3.) Go through all open jira issues and identify show
stopper issues.
4.) create a new isis-0.9.0 'Version' in Jira and move all
bugs to 'fixed in isis-0.9.0' in Jira.
Anything I forgot?
LieGrue,
strub
