I'll second two things that David mentioned:1. Release 1.0 first. We have a release that as others have said, passes the JSR 220 TCK and is production-ready. Let's make some noise. Even though we won't have the incubator to officially bless the releases, it will still take some time to get out.
And in the middle of the release, we will likely have to deal with the change of repository from incubator to openjpa. (I think Eddie is overly optimistic in thinking that the incubator => tlp process will only take a week). But I don't think we need to wait until it's complete to start the release process.
Now, we need a release manager volunteer.2. Scrub the bugs in JIRA. I think we should go through them and make sure there are no showstoppers for a 1.0 release.
3. Just one more thing. It doesn't really require a JIRA to track, but a JIRA per area might be useful so we don't get in each others' way. The wiki, site, and doc need to all be updated to remove the incubating disclaimer.
Craig On May 20, 2007, at 11:14 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On May 20, 2007, at 10:25 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:It sounds like there are a bunch of new things that we'll be doing in this process; maybe we should do a 0.9.8 first to get the various artifacts all sorted out, and then do a 1.0?I think that there will be enough confusion and retries to get an acceptable 1.0 release out with the moved infrastructure that there's no need to complicate the process with an immediate version change. In other words, go for 1.0 now.I do think you should review the jiras a bit before releasing. For instance I'm sure you want to apply the 2nd patch to OPENJPA-148 or undo the first patch since the first patch makes it really easy to create an NPE.thanks david jencks-Patrick On 5/20/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:that said, this is the OpenJPA project, and no matter what the state of the infra move, anything that this group does now is independent and disconnected from the incuabtor On May 19, 2007, at 10:15 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote: > +1 -- assuming the code is ready to go, I agree that it's a good > idea to go straight to 1.0. > > +1 as well to waiting until the TLP infrastructure is complete,> which could take a week or more to unbrand from the Incubator, move> the website content, etc. > > Eddie > > > > On 5/19/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I personally lean towards just bumping it up to 1.0 and cutting a >> release as soon as possible after we complete the incubator->TLP >> process. A release number < 1.0 suggests to so many people that a>> product is not production-ready, and OpenJPA is so mature and in use >> in so many mission-critical systems that I think we should just bump >> all the open issues to a 1.0.1 or 1.1 release and get a 1.0 release>> out in the public. >> >> >> >> On May 19, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >>> > There's no urgency, but I think we should start discussing what our>> > first release should be out of incubation. >> >>> > Let's take a look at the issues in JIRA and decide if we think that >> > we're ready for a 1.0 release. If not, we can cut a 0.9.8 release>> > and make a list of 1.0 bugs/features to follow. >> > >> > Craig >> > >> > Craig Russell >> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/ >> products/jdo >> > 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >> > >> >>-- Patrick Linskey 202 669 5907
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
