I've got to the point where I have packaged up a new beta1 SDO java release candidate in the style if the last one [1], but that's only part of the process now that I have to set up a remote maven repository as a staging post for the deployed release candidate artifacts (as per the recent discussion on incubator general). I'm just about to figure out how to create/configure the repo, but any tips on the process for making the maven repo are welcome; I'll post back my findings.
[1] http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/beta1/RC1/ Kelvin. On 24/04/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ant, your note is well timed as I've had a couple of off-line chats with people in the last week about release naming, particularly with regard to the effect that a milestone or alpha name can have on uptake of a release. In the IRC chat of 16th April [1] we reached a conclusion that given the fact that a new release candidate had just been posted for consideration, we would leave naming as it was. However, I got the impression that in general the community was giving me an implicit +0 vote to retaining the M3 release tag, but the ideal would be to move to a beta1 tag. At the time there was a handful of small SDO 2.1 spec features for which we didn't have a first cut implementation. Now this has reduced to just a couple, and it seemed that there was consensus from the discussion that a beta* tag was not incompatible with this state, so long as the omissions were documented. The SDO RC3 has been available for a little while for comment, but has not received much attention. I have a couple of small non-blocking issues with the candidate that I have spotted that I would like to tidy up. So I propose that I quickly cut a new 1.0-incubating-beta1 tag from the M3 tag, make my small fixes (including adopting the incubating name convention over the previous incubator convention) post a new candidate and start a vote on that candidate. I'd like to do this ASAP and I don't think this is contentious, but I guess I need to give a little time for reaction before proceeding, as my actions would not be in accordance with the outcome community discussions; I propose to do this at start of UK business tomorrow. Kelvin [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg16772.html On 24/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > What are we going to be calling this next SCA release? > > We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are > talking > about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was > some > discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha > release > names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound > unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking > about > making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are > becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me. > > So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could > try > to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming? > > Any comments or alternative name suggestions? > > ...ant >
