Re: Is saga named right?
Well, this is the first time I hear about the story of the PACK name. I like the meaning of a group of wild animals and it is really cool ! Willem Jiang 于2018年11月20日周二 上午6:02写道： > Pack has two means as a noun, we could tell a good story with it :) > 1. a group of wild animals, especially wolves, living and hunting together. > 2. a small cardboard or paper container and the items contained within it. > > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:09 PM 赵俊 wrote: > > > > I have’t understand pack meaning before, thanks for explain. > > I think pack which represents feature enhance like windows service pack > at first time. > > > > > > > On Nov 20, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Willem Jiang > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Cherry， > > > > > > servicecomb-saga-actuator is just for the centrical saga > implementation. > > > We will rename the servicecomb-saga to servicecomb-pack, as I prefer > > > the name of pack which shows the spirit of DTS (Distributed > > > Transaction Service), Omega report the status, and the Alpha take the > > > control of everything. > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:21 AM cherrylzhao > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi, Willem > > >> > > >> I think servicecomb-dts or servicecomb-dtx is better. > > >> And we can keep the old saga package same as before. > > >> > > >>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Willem Jiang > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Please let me know what your think about this. Either way I will > > >>> start a vote for the repository change shortly this week. > > >>> > > >>> Willem Jiang > > >>> > > >>> Twitter: willemjiang > > >>> Weibo: 姜宁willem > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:57 AM Willem Jiang > wrote: > > > > Now the Saga 0.2.x branch is ready for the release, we will start > the > > rename process after the release. > > At the meantime I planning to create new git repo > > servicecomb-saga-actuator to host the old saga implementation. > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:32 PM Willem Jiang < > willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Agree we need the migration document for it. > > > > > > There are lots change in the 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT, if we want the user > use > > > the new added transports, we may need to back port those patch to > > > 0.2.0 branch. > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Zheng Feng > wrote: > > >> > > >> Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 下午5:13写道： > > >> > > >>> I think we can keep the annotation there , but mark it as > deprecated > > >>> and add the new annotation there. So there could be a very big > change > > >>> on the customer project. > > >>> > > >> I agree that could be a problem with upgrading from the old > version and > > >> should be very clear explain in the documentation. > > >> > > >> We could consider to remove the old implementation in the Pack > 0.4.0 > > >>> release. Beside the the package rename, we also need to rename > the > > >>> artifacts group id. > > >>> > > >> I think we need to change the major version if we rename the > package and > > >> group id. > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Or we can do the 0.2.x release for new added transport > components. > > >>> > > >> 0.2.x ? sorry, I think we are in 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT currently. > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Willem Jiang > > >>> > > >>> Twitter: willemjiang > > >>> Weibo: 姜宁willem > > >>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:22 PM Zheng Feng > wrote: > > > > comments inline, > > > > Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 上午10:39写道： > > > > > As we discussed, Here is the proposal of the github rename for > the > > > distribute transaction > > > 1. Rename servicecomb-saga -> servicecomb-pack to keep all the > starts, > > > and we need to rename the package name to pack. > > > If the user use the old link of saga, it will be redirect to > > > servicecomb-pack > > > > > If we rename the package, it will break the compatible of the > java > > annotations ? How about the next release plan ? > > > > 2. Create a new github repo servicecomb-saga-engine to remain > the old > > >>> saga > > > stuff > > > > > It looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > Any thought? If it is OK , I will start a vote for it at the > end of > > >>> this > > > week. > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:22 PM
Re: ServiceComb Community Meeting
I am preparing a Apache ServiceComb Meetup about on Dec 23th. The Meetup will be held with itcast [1]. We are just doing a discussion of draft plan last week. Maybe we can have a 1 hour conference to meet F2F with our committers to discuss about how to develop the community and carrying out the Roadmap. Besides, I think we can have a online meetup with committers each month, anyone who are concerning about Apache ServiceComb can join the meetup to discuss the Roadmap. Thus we can always update the Roadmap. We have no need to care how many committers will join the meetup, but just let us start it. I believe that as long as we keep doing it, more and more developers will join in. Anyway, What I concern is that many developers want to know what can I do and what will the community want the next, that is what we called roadmap. Any thoughts? Best Regards, --- Zen Lin zenlintechnofr...@gmail.com Focused on Micro Service and Apache ServiceComb cherrylzhao 于2018年11月20日周二 上午11:38写道： > If we can post the time, face to face meeting(skype) is better. > Also we can send the meeting summary to the mailing list. > > > On Nov 20, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Willem Jiang > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I had a talk with Asif recently about the community meeting recently. > > I think it's a great idea which could help us get touch with the > > community contributor and help them to know better about our project > > development plan. In this way we could help more developer or user to > > know better about our code and we can know better about the user case > > at the same time. > > > > It could be a simple meeting in the Gitter (we just need to post the > > time to let everyone know we are online for it) or even face to face > > meeting for the meetup. > > > > Any thoughts? I'm really appreciate the effort that everyone put on > > the community. > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > >
Re: Is saga named right?
Pack has two means as a noun, we could tell a good story with it :) 1. a group of wild animals, especially wolves, living and hunting together. 2. a small cardboard or paper container and the items contained within it. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:09 PM 赵俊 wrote: > > I have’t understand pack meaning before, thanks for explain. > I think pack which represents feature enhance like windows service pack at > first time. > > > > On Nov 20, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Willem Jiang wrote: > > > > Hi Cherry， > > > > servicecomb-saga-actuator is just for the centrical saga implementation. > > We will rename the servicecomb-saga to servicecomb-pack, as I prefer > > the name of pack which shows the spirit of DTS (Distributed > > Transaction Service), Omega report the status, and the Alpha take the > > control of everything. > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:21 AM cherrylzhao wrote: > >> > >> Hi, Willem > >> > >> I think servicecomb-dts or servicecomb-dtx is better. > >> And we can keep the old saga package same as before. > >> > >>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Willem Jiang wrote: > >>> > >>> Please let me know what your think about this. Either way I will > >>> start a vote for the repository change shortly this week. > >>> > >>> Willem Jiang > >>> > >>> Twitter: willemjiang > >>> Weibo: 姜宁willem > >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:57 AM Willem Jiang > >>> wrote: > > Now the Saga 0.2.x branch is ready for the release, we will start the > rename process after the release. > At the meantime I planning to create new git repo > servicecomb-saga-actuator to host the old saga implementation. > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:32 PM Willem Jiang > wrote: > > > > Agree we need the migration document for it. > > > > There are lots change in the 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT, if we want the user use > > the new added transports, we may need to back port those patch to > > 0.2.0 branch. > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Zheng Feng wrote: > >> > >> Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 下午5:13写道： > >> > >>> I think we can keep the annotation there , but mark it as deprecated > >>> and add the new annotation there. So there could be a very big change > >>> on the customer project. > >>> > >> I agree that could be a problem with upgrading from the old version > >> and > >> should be very clear explain in the documentation. > >> > >> We could consider to remove the old implementation in the Pack 0.4.0 > >>> release. Beside the the package rename, we also need to rename the > >>> artifacts group id. > >>> > >> I think we need to change the major version if we rename the package > >> and > >> group id. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Or we can do the 0.2.x release for new added transport components. > >>> > >> 0.2.x ? sorry, I think we are in 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT currently. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Willem Jiang > >>> > >>> Twitter: willemjiang > >>> Weibo: 姜宁willem > >>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:22 PM Zheng Feng wrote: > > comments inline, > > Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 上午10:39写道： > > > As we discussed, Here is the proposal of the github rename for the > > distribute transaction > > 1. Rename servicecomb-saga -> servicecomb-pack to keep all the > > starts, > > and we need to rename the package name to pack. > > If the user use the old link of saga, it will be redirect to > > servicecomb-pack > > > If we rename the package, it will break the compatible of the java > annotations ? How about the next release plan ? > > 2. Create a new github repo servicecomb-saga-engine to remain the old > >>> saga > > stuff > > > It looks good to me. > > > > > > Any thought? If it is OK , I will start a vote for it at the end of > >>> this > > week. > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:22 PM Willem Jiang > > > > wrote: > >> > >> Sure, I just create a JIRA[1] for it. > >> [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SCB-976 > >> > >> Willem Jiang > >> > >> Twitter: willemjiang > >> Weibo: 姜宁willem > >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Zheng Feng > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Willem, > >>> > >>> Can you create a JIRA for this moving and it
Re: Is saga named right?
I have’t understand pack meaning before, thanks for explain. I think pack which represents feature enhance like windows service pack at first time. > On Nov 20, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Willem Jiang wrote: > > Hi Cherry， > > servicecomb-saga-actuator is just for the centrical saga implementation. > We will rename the servicecomb-saga to servicecomb-pack, as I prefer > the name of pack which shows the spirit of DTS (Distributed > Transaction Service), Omega report the status, and the Alpha take the > control of everything. > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:21 AM cherrylzhao wrote: >> >> Hi, Willem >> >> I think servicecomb-dts or servicecomb-dtx is better. >> And we can keep the old saga package same as before. >> >>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Willem Jiang wrote: >>> >>> Please let me know what your think about this. Either way I will >>> start a vote for the repository change shortly this week. >>> >>> Willem Jiang >>> >>> Twitter: willemjiang >>> Weibo: 姜宁willem >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:57 AM Willem Jiang wrote: Now the Saga 0.2.x branch is ready for the release, we will start the rename process after the release. At the meantime I planning to create new git repo servicecomb-saga-actuator to host the old saga implementation. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:32 PM Willem Jiang wrote: > > Agree we need the migration document for it. > > There are lots change in the 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT, if we want the user use > the new added transports, we may need to back port those patch to > 0.2.0 branch. > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Zheng Feng wrote: >> >> Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 下午5:13写道： >> >>> I think we can keep the annotation there , but mark it as deprecated >>> and add the new annotation there. So there could be a very big change >>> on the customer project. >>> >> I agree that could be a problem with upgrading from the old version and >> should be very clear explain in the documentation. >> >> We could consider to remove the old implementation in the Pack 0.4.0 >>> release. Beside the the package rename, we also need to rename the >>> artifacts group id. >>> >> I think we need to change the major version if we rename the package and >> group id. >> >> >>> >>> Or we can do the 0.2.x release for new added transport components. >>> >> 0.2.x ? sorry, I think we are in 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT currently. >> >> >>> >>> Willem Jiang >>> >>> Twitter: willemjiang >>> Weibo: 姜宁willem >>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:22 PM Zheng Feng wrote: comments inline, Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 上午10:39写道： > As we discussed, Here is the proposal of the github rename for the > distribute transaction > 1. Rename servicecomb-saga -> servicecomb-pack to keep all the starts, > and we need to rename the package name to pack. > If the user use the old link of saga, it will be redirect to > servicecomb-pack > If we rename the package, it will break the compatible of the java annotations ? How about the next release plan ? 2. Create a new github repo servicecomb-saga-engine to remain the old >>> saga > stuff > It looks good to me. > > Any thought? If it is OK , I will start a vote for it at the end of >>> this > week. > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:22 PM Willem Jiang > wrote: >> >> Sure, I just create a JIRA[1] for it. >> [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SCB-976 >> >> Willem Jiang >> >> Twitter: willemjiang >> Weibo: 姜宁willem >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Zheng Feng >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Willem, >>> >>> Can you create a JIRA for this moving and it could make it much >>> clear > in >>> the description ? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Willem Jiang 于2018年10月23日周二 下午9:04写道： >>> If we put them all together, we cannot name it as Saga. It could confuse the user. But I don't want to rename the Saga repo, as lot of people >>> already know about it. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:45 PM
Re: Is saga named right?
Hi Cherry， servicecomb-saga-actuator is just for the centrical saga implementation. We will rename the servicecomb-saga to servicecomb-pack, as I prefer the name of pack which shows the spirit of DTS (Distributed Transaction Service), Omega report the status, and the Alpha take the control of everything. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:21 AM cherrylzhao wrote: > > Hi, Willem > > I think servicecomb-dts or servicecomb-dtx is better. > And we can keep the old saga package same as before. > > > On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Willem Jiang wrote: > > > > Please let me know what your think about this. Either way I will > > start a vote for the repository change shortly this week. > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:57 AM Willem Jiang wrote: > >> > >> Now the Saga 0.2.x branch is ready for the release, we will start the > >> rename process after the release. > >> At the meantime I planning to create new git repo > >> servicecomb-saga-actuator to host the old saga implementation. > >> > >> Willem Jiang > >> > >> Twitter: willemjiang > >> Weibo: 姜宁willem > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:32 PM Willem Jiang > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Agree we need the migration document for it. > >>> > >>> There are lots change in the 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT, if we want the user use > >>> the new added transports, we may need to back port those patch to > >>> 0.2.0 branch. > >>> > >>> Willem Jiang > >>> > >>> Twitter: willemjiang > >>> Weibo: 姜宁willem > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Zheng Feng wrote: > > Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 下午5:13写道： > > > I think we can keep the annotation there , but mark it as deprecated > > and add the new annotation there. So there could be a very big change > > on the customer project. > > > I agree that could be a problem with upgrading from the old version and > should be very clear explain in the documentation. > > We could consider to remove the old implementation in the Pack 0.4.0 > > release. Beside the the package rename, we also need to rename the > > artifacts group id. > > > I think we need to change the major version if we rename the package and > group id. > > > > > > Or we can do the 0.2.x release for new added transport components. > > > 0.2.x ? sorry, I think we are in 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT currently. > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:22 PM Zheng Feng wrote: > >> > >> comments inline, > >> > >> Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 上午10:39写道： > >> > >>> As we discussed, Here is the proposal of the github rename for the > >>> distribute transaction > >>> 1. Rename servicecomb-saga -> servicecomb-pack to keep all the starts, > >>> and we need to rename the package name to pack. > >>>If the user use the old link of saga, it will be redirect to > >>> servicecomb-pack > >>> > >> If we rename the package, it will break the compatible of the java > >> annotations ? How about the next release plan ? > >> > >> 2. Create a new github repo servicecomb-saga-engine to remain the old > > saga > >>> stuff > >>> > >> It looks good to me. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Any thought? If it is OK , I will start a vote for it at the end of > > this > >>> week. > >>> > >>> Willem Jiang > >>> > >>> Twitter: willemjiang > >>> Weibo: 姜宁willem > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:22 PM Willem Jiang > >>> wrote: > > Sure, I just create a JIRA[1] for it. > [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SCB-976 > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Zheng Feng > > wrote: > > > > Hi Willem, > > > > Can you create a JIRA for this moving and it could make it much > > clear > >>> in > > the description ? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Willem Jiang 于2018年10月23日周二 下午9:04写道： > > > >> If we put them all together, we cannot name it as Saga. It could > >> confuse the user. > >> But I don't want to rename the Saga repo, as lot of people > > already > >> know about it. > >> > >> > >> Willem Jiang > >> > >> Twitter: willemjiang > >> Weibo: 姜宁willem > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:45 PM bismy wrote: > >>> > >>> Can we put them all in one project so that we can release all > >>> components > >> together? > >>> > >>> > >>> We can separate them in different modules in saga project. > >>> > >>> > >>> I
Re: ServiceComb Community Meeting
If we can post the time, face to face meeting(skype) is better. Also we can send the meeting summary to the mailing list. > On Nov 20, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Willem Jiang wrote: > > Hi, > > I had a talk with Asif recently about the community meeting recently. > I think it's a great idea which could help us get touch with the > community contributor and help them to know better about our project > development plan. In this way we could help more developer or user to > know better about our code and we can know better about the user case > at the same time. > > It could be a simple meeting in the Gitter (we just need to post the > time to let everyone know we are online for it) or even face to face > meeting for the meetup. > > Any thoughts? I'm really appreciate the effort that everyone put on > the community. > > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem
Re: Is saga named right?
Hi, Willem I think servicecomb-dts or servicecomb-dtx is better. And we can keep the old saga package same as before. > On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Willem Jiang wrote: > > Please let me know what your think about this. Either way I will > start a vote for the repository change shortly this week. > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:57 AM Willem Jiang wrote: >> >> Now the Saga 0.2.x branch is ready for the release, we will start the >> rename process after the release. >> At the meantime I planning to create new git repo >> servicecomb-saga-actuator to host the old saga implementation. >> >> Willem Jiang >> >> Twitter: willemjiang >> Weibo: 姜宁willem >> >> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:32 PM Willem Jiang wrote: >>> >>> Agree we need the migration document for it. >>> >>> There are lots change in the 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT, if we want the user use >>> the new added transports, we may need to back port those patch to >>> 0.2.0 branch. >>> >>> Willem Jiang >>> >>> Twitter: willemjiang >>> Weibo: 姜宁willem >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Zheng Feng wrote: Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 下午5:13写道： > I think we can keep the annotation there , but mark it as deprecated > and add the new annotation there. So there could be a very big change > on the customer project. > I agree that could be a problem with upgrading from the old version and should be very clear explain in the documentation. We could consider to remove the old implementation in the Pack 0.4.0 > release. Beside the the package rename, we also need to rename the > artifacts group id. > I think we need to change the major version if we rename the package and group id. > > Or we can do the 0.2.x release for new added transport components. > 0.2.x ? sorry, I think we are in 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT currently. > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:22 PM Zheng Feng wrote: >> >> comments inline, >> >> Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 上午10:39写道： >> >>> As we discussed, Here is the proposal of the github rename for the >>> distribute transaction >>> 1. Rename servicecomb-saga -> servicecomb-pack to keep all the starts, >>> and we need to rename the package name to pack. >>>If the user use the old link of saga, it will be redirect to >>> servicecomb-pack >>> >> If we rename the package, it will break the compatible of the java >> annotations ? How about the next release plan ? >> >> 2. Create a new github repo servicecomb-saga-engine to remain the old > saga >>> stuff >>> >> It looks good to me. >> >> >>> >>> Any thought? If it is OK , I will start a vote for it at the end of > this >>> week. >>> >>> Willem Jiang >>> >>> Twitter: willemjiang >>> Weibo: 姜宁willem >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:22 PM Willem Jiang >>> wrote: Sure, I just create a JIRA[1] for it. [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SCB-976 Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Zheng Feng > wrote: > > Hi Willem, > > Can you create a JIRA for this moving and it could make it much > clear >>> in > the description ? > > Thanks, > > Willem Jiang 于2018年10月23日周二 下午9:04写道： > >> If we put them all together, we cannot name it as Saga. It could >> confuse the user. >> But I don't want to rename the Saga repo, as lot of people > already >> know about it. >> >> >> Willem Jiang >> >> Twitter: willemjiang >> Weibo: 姜宁willem >> >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:45 PM bismy wrote: >>> >>> Can we put them all in one project so that we can release all >>> components >> together? >>> >>> >>> We can separate them in different modules in saga project. >>> >>> >>> I think we can use SAGA as the name for this project which >>> implements >> BASE transactions(saga, tcc, etc. ) although saga is one of > them in >> history. >>> >>> >>> -- 原始邮件 -- >>> 发件人: "willem.jiang"; >>> 发送时间: 2018年10月23日(星期二) 晚上7:31 >>> 收件人: "dev"; >>> >>> 主题: Re: Is saga named right? >>> >>> >>> >>> Yeah, that is exactly what I'm thinking about. >>> The new git repo could be Pack, we can implement different >>> Transaction >>> protocal there. >>> And the current
ServiceComb Community Meeting
Hi, I had a talk with Asif recently about the community meeting recently. I think it's a great idea which could help us get touch with the community contributor and help them to know better about our project development plan. In this way we could help more developer or user to know better about our code and we can know better about the user case at the same time. It could be a simple meeting in the Gitter (we just need to post the time to let everyone know we are online for it) or even face to face meeting for the meetup. Any thoughts? I'm really appreciate the effort that everyone put on the community. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem
Re: Is saga named right?
Please let me know what your think about this. Either way I will start a vote for the repository change shortly this week. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:57 AM Willem Jiang wrote: > > Now the Saga 0.2.x branch is ready for the release, we will start the > rename process after the release. > At the meantime I planning to create new git repo > servicecomb-saga-actuator to host the old saga implementation. > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:32 PM Willem Jiang wrote: > > > > Agree we need the migration document for it. > > > > There are lots change in the 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT, if we want the user use > > the new added transports, we may need to back port those patch to > > 0.2.0 branch. > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Zheng Feng wrote: > > > > > > Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 下午5:13写道： > > > > > > > I think we can keep the annotation there , but mark it as deprecated > > > > and add the new annotation there. So there could be a very big change > > > > on the customer project. > > > > > > > I agree that could be a problem with upgrading from the old version and > > > should be very clear explain in the documentation. > > > > > > We could consider to remove the old implementation in the Pack 0.4.0 > > > > release. Beside the the package rename, we also need to rename the > > > > artifacts group id. > > > > > > > I think we need to change the major version if we rename the package and > > > group id. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or we can do the 0.2.x release for new added transport components. > > > > > > > 0.2.x ? sorry, I think we are in 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT currently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:22 PM Zheng Feng wrote: > > > > > > > > > > comments inline, > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 上午10:39写道： > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, Here is the proposal of the github rename for the > > > > > > distribute transaction > > > > > > 1. Rename servicecomb-saga -> servicecomb-pack to keep all the > > > > > > starts, > > > > > > and we need to rename the package name to pack. > > > > > > If the user use the old link of saga, it will be redirect to > > > > > > servicecomb-pack > > > > > > > > > > > If we rename the package, it will break the compatible of the java > > > > > annotations ? How about the next release plan ? > > > > > > > > > > 2. Create a new github repo servicecomb-saga-engine to remain the old > > > > saga > > > > > > stuff > > > > > > > > > > > It looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thought? If it is OK , I will start a vote for it at the end of > > > > this > > > > > > week. > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:22 PM Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I just create a JIRA[1] for it. > > > > > > > [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SCB-976 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > > > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Zheng Feng > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Willem, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you create a JIRA for this moving and it could make it much > > > > clear > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the description ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang 于2018年10月23日周二 下午9:04写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we put them all together, we cannot name it as Saga. It > > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > confuse the user. > > > > > > > > > But I don't want to rename the Saga repo, as lot of people > > > > already > > > > > > > > > know about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > > > > > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:45 PM bismy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we put them all in one project so that we can release > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > components > > > > > > > > > together? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can separate them in different modules in saga project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can use SAGA as the name for this project which > > > > > > implements > > > > > > > > > BASE transactions(saga, tcc, etc. ) although saga is one of > > > > them in > > > > > > > > > history. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- 原始邮件 -- > > > > > > > > > > 发件人: "willem.jiang"; > > > > > > > > > > 发送时间: 2018年10月23日(星期二) 晚上7:31 > > > > > > > > >
Re: Is saga named right?
Now the Saga 0.2.x branch is ready for the release, we will start the rename process after the release. At the meantime I planning to create new git repo servicecomb-saga-actuator to host the old saga implementation. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:32 PM Willem Jiang wrote: > > Agree we need the migration document for it. > > There are lots change in the 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT, if we want the user use > the new added transports, we may need to back port those patch to > 0.2.0 branch. > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Zheng Feng wrote: > > > > Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 下午5:13写道： > > > > > I think we can keep the annotation there , but mark it as deprecated > > > and add the new annotation there. So there could be a very big change > > > on the customer project. > > > > > I agree that could be a problem with upgrading from the old version and > > should be very clear explain in the documentation. > > > > We could consider to remove the old implementation in the Pack 0.4.0 > > > release. Beside the the package rename, we also need to rename the > > > artifacts group id. > > > > > I think we need to change the major version if we rename the package and > > group id. > > > > > > > > > > Or we can do the 0.2.x release for new added transport components. > > > > > 0.2.x ? sorry, I think we are in 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT currently. > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:22 PM Zheng Feng wrote: > > > > > > > > comments inline, > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang 于2018年11月14日周三 上午10:39写道： > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, Here is the proposal of the github rename for the > > > > > distribute transaction > > > > > 1. Rename servicecomb-saga -> servicecomb-pack to keep all the starts, > > > > > and we need to rename the package name to pack. > > > > > If the user use the old link of saga, it will be redirect to > > > > > servicecomb-pack > > > > > > > > > If we rename the package, it will break the compatible of the java > > > > annotations ? How about the next release plan ? > > > > > > > > 2. Create a new github repo servicecomb-saga-engine to remain the old > > > saga > > > > > stuff > > > > > > > > > It looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thought? If it is OK , I will start a vote for it at the end of > > > this > > > > > week. > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:22 PM Willem Jiang > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I just create a JIRA[1] for it. > > > > > > [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SCB-976 > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Zheng Feng > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Willem, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you create a JIRA for this moving and it could make it much > > > clear > > > > > in > > > > > > > the description ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang 于2018年10月23日周二 下午9:04写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we put them all together, we cannot name it as Saga. It could > > > > > > > > confuse the user. > > > > > > > > But I don't want to rename the Saga repo, as lot of people > > > already > > > > > > > > know about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > > > > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:45 PM bismy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we put them all in one project so that we can release all > > > > > components > > > > > > > > together? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can separate them in different modules in saga project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can use SAGA as the name for this project which > > > > > implements > > > > > > > > BASE transactions(saga, tcc, etc. ) although saga is one of > > > them in > > > > > > > > history. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- 原始邮件 -- > > > > > > > > > 发件人: "willem.jiang"; > > > > > > > > > 发送时间: 2018年10月23日(星期二) 晚上7:31 > > > > > > > > > 收件人: "dev"; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 主题: Re: Is saga named right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is exactly what I'm thinking about. > > > > > > > > > The new git repo could be Pack, we can implement different > > > > > Transaction > > > > > > > > > protocal there. > > > > > > > > > And the current Saga code could have a dependency of it or we > > > just > > > > > > > > > move the Pack related code to Pack repo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Release of ServiceComb 1.1.0
Hi wjm, Now the service-center artifact is cut, and saga is on the way. Please let us know if the java-chassis branch is ready for the release. We are supposed to do the release this week. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:08 PM wjm wjm wrote: > > we can start release process between 11.19~11.23 for java chassis > > Bin Ma 于2018年11月4日周日 上午12:13写道： > > > OK,I will try to check the ServiceComb website first > > > > > > Best Wishes & Regards > > --- > > Mabin > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang 于2018年11月2日周五 上午8:30写道： > > > > > I already submit a JIRA and wait for infra's response. > > > But the document it's OK for us do the modification, please send a PR > > > if you have time to work on it. > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:24 PM Bin Ma wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Some community users plan to make courses based on ServiceComb in the > > > near > > > > future, like Itcast,University and so on. > > > > So I think it may be speed up the process of renaming the git repo name > > > and > > > > updating the documentation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Wishes & Regards > > > > --- > > > > Mabin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang 于2018年10月29日周一 下午12:54写道： > > > > > > > > > FYI， I fill a JIRA[1] for renaming the git repo. > > > > > > > > > > [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17185 > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 10:09 PM Willem Jiang < > > willem.ji...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I just forgot the github name issue which we faced when moving > > > > > > the servicecomb to apache incubator. > > > > > > I will fill a JIRA this weekend, it may take few days to do the > > > > > > transfer. Once we changed the github name, we could consider the > > > > > > release of ServiceCenter. > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 2:25 PM Mohammad Asif Siddiqui > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Willem, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion since ServiceComb has already graduated so we can > > > change > > > > > the repository names first and migrate the SVN for the releases and > > > then > > > > > plan for the ServiceComb 1.1.0 release. In Service-Center after the > > > change > > > > > in the repository name we need to change the import statements of > > each > > > file > > > > > and also we need to update the Travis settings for each project and > > > make > > > > > new encryption keys for automatic snapshot deployment, for all these > > > > > activities it might take 2-3 days so we can plan this first in coming > > > week > > > > > and then we can go ahead with the Service-Center 1.1.0 release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just my 2 cents.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > Asif > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2018/10/22 03:39:02, Willem Jiang > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The last ServiceComb java-chassis，service-center 1.0.0 release > > is > > > > > > > > three month ago. It's time to discuss the release of > > ServiceComb > > > > > > > > 1.1.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we add the TCC implementation in the Saga 0.3.0, we may need > > > to > > > > > > > > create a separate git repo to support the Saga and TCC at the > > > same > > > > > > > > time. It may take sometime to do these change. We may do the > > > Saga > > > > > > > > release after the release of java-chassis and service-center. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > > > > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Release of ServiceComb Saga 0.2.1
The 0.2.x branch is ready to go. We are planning cut the release today. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 4:18 PM Zheng Feng wrote: > > yeah, it looks good to me and let's vote it ! > > Willem Jiang 于2018年11月15日周四 下午6:54写道： > > > It has been a while for the ServiceComb released Saga 0.2.0. > > As we are in the middle of rename of git repo, and some user wants to > > use the Saga into their production environment. I just merged some > > bug patches and new added feign component into the 0.2.x branch. > > > > Here is the change log of Saga 0.2.1 > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12321626=12344453 > > > > Can we start the release of ServiceComb Saga 0.2.1 at the end of this week? > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > >
