On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Robert Greig wrote:
On 14/11/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To this end my a propose a third option:
- branch to release what we have now (This is a good so that we can
work through all the apache release procedures)
- when we release C++ and other components in a few weeks time
(maybe
push back to Dec) we call it M2 and re-cut an update of Java
- with maven + new code generators, persistence etc....
This works for me. I was going to propose (after M1 was out of the
way) that M2 was scoped to be maven, persistence and as many JMS
compliance improvements as we could achieve. That would push the major
HA and protocol changes into an M3 in January.
I was about to respond with a similar suggestion, but even less
aggressive in terms of features. What we'd like to see is an M2
starting essentially right away, shortly after Rajith branches for
M1. We'd like to scope M2 to include maven, along with a move to
junit3 so as to enhance the effectiveness of maven and enforce the
jdk 1.4 constraint for client.
What would specifically *not* be in M2, however, would be a move to
the new rev of AMQP -- we'd push that off to M3 (note BTW that this
requires going through JIRA to move all relevant issues related to
AMQP version from M2 to M3).
Whether persistence and JMS could be in the picture, I hadn't
considered. I don't know how close persistence is, nor how much work
the JMS stuff is, but we can certainly talk about that.
Like the issue that Marnie and John raised earlier, where a certain
party is looking for an M1 based on what's there today, we have other
parties looking for a mavenized release very soon based on the
current version of AMQP. Hopefully we can all help each other out,
rather than arguing and all of us losing as a result.
Note that there's nothing that prohibits us from starting an M2
immediately after M1.
I was hoping that we could get that M2 out in December (although
realistically I had thought mid-December). The motivation for that is
that we have a major project that does not require HA but does need
the persistence changes and I imagine their needs are not unique.
I like the December target date for M2. However, just be aware that
the Apache release process can be long and drawn out. It can take
many weeks. For example, Yoko has been trying to get a release out
for about the past 10 weeks. It takes a minimum of a 3-day vote in
this group followed by a 3-day vote by the incubator PMC to get a
release, and pretty much nobody gets it right the first time, meaning
that this 6-7 day process usually has to be repeated several times.
I would even volunteer to serve as M2 release manager.
Thoughts?
--steve
