Here's todays weekly IRC chat log. The only topic discussed was the SCA 0.90release, the current plan is to cut a 0.90 release branch this Wednesday.
We went through the open JIRA's targeted at 0.90 to see if anyone wanted particular JIRA's as must fix for 0.90 and which ones could be defered. The current JIRA's for 0.90 are: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310210&fixfor=12312478 . Tomorrow I'm going to move all of those out of 0.90 except for TUSCANY-1247, TUSCANY-1248, and TUSCANY-1265. If anyone has any others which should be in 0.90 just say. The samples were also discussed, sounds like most of them are ready, there's some issues around the those related to how to write Tuscany extensions, discussion will continue on the mailing list. Venkat will run RAT against the current distro's and email the mailing list the results, slaws will try the distro's on linux. The latest distributions built of the trunk code as of just now (r537917) are at: http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/latest/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/latest/>. Please try these out and report any issues (or even just that you tried and a sample worked!) ...ant <ant_> Hi everyone <Venkat> Hi ant_ <kgoodson> hi <Venkat> and Hi everybody there :) <ant_> Can we talk about the release? <simonnash> hi everyone. I can only stay for 30 mins today. <slaws> hi there - sounds good to me <ant_> I posted to the ML about trying to be ready to cut a branch on Wednesday, does that sound doable? <slaws> can we see here what we have left to do <ant_> We've started to get quite a few open JIRAs against the trunk code: <ant_> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310210&fixfor=12312478 <ant_> how about everyone goes and has a quick look and if say which of those you think MUST get fixed for 0.90? <rfeng> hi <slaws> also, after that, we need to disclose if there are things still being wokred on that are not in JIRA <ant_> yes. Can do that now if anyone has something while we looking at the jira list <Venkat> IMO, we should keep out 1175 and 1176 <slaws> 1247, 1248 are in <ant_> ok, 1175 and 1176 are now out unless anyone shouts <slaws> 1248 is just about there, still in negotiations about some of sample layout so will have some effect on READMEs <ant_> Venkat - 1275 and 1276? <simonnash> 1175 and 1176 are SDO CTS <Venkat> oh yes Ant... really sorry about that messup :( * Amita has joined #tuscany <ant_> 1266 and 1270 could be defered i think <ant_> what about 1265, that seems like we should try to fix it <slaws> yep - agreed <slaws> 1255 also <slaws> 1254 - I think we have come to a conclusion on <ant_> i don't know abot 1255, it doesn't seem so serrious, but if anyone wants to apply the patch... <ant_> 1254 is a SDO jira? <slaws> i'll take a look at it - it's serious if there is a NPE involved <simonnash> 1255 is trivial and I think it's important. after all, this IS a sample and samples are supposed to teach users what to do <ant_> its an itest, and the build is passing at the moment so is the test commented out or something? <slaws> i don;t see it fail either - but i'll take a look <slaws> easy to fix to correct the SCDL anyhow <ant_> My take on all this its better to just get a 0.90 release out and fixing whatever we can latter. We can try to make 1.0 perfect, 0.90 can be less than perfect <slaws> ok - so what are the big ticket items that NEED doing from this list? <ant_> so we shold focus on fixing all theese JIRAs we say MUST be fixed before worrying about the less serrious ones <simonnash> are we talking about 1254 or 1255 now? * lresende has joined #tuscany <slaws> maybe ant you could take us through the list - we are getting a little confused I think <ant_> ok, <ant_> so far we have MUST fix as: 1247, 1248, 1265 <Venkat> +1 to Ant's suggestion <ant_> so unless anyone says different, allthe others can be defered :) <ant_> (i'm asking not telling, just say if there's others) <Venkat> what about 1268 and 1269.. if we are going to include json-rpc in this release <Venkat> ..only if its something that we can wrap up quickly... <ant_> 1268 isn't great but I don't think it matters for 0.90 <simonnash> my apologies about 1255. i thought it was a sample, but it isn't. So this is lower priority. <slaws> can you say something aboutn 1259 - sounds serious from just reading it <simonnash> i thin we need 1264 and to get the samples straightened out <ant_> maybe we need to note somewhere that TUSCANY-1269 means the jsonrpc stuff will change in later releases? <rfeng> I was about to mention 1259 <Venkat> yes... prob. the sample's read me could contain that... <rfeng> I think Sebastien proposed a fix on the ML <rfeng> we also need to fix the extending tuscany document to reflect the latest SPIs <ant_> 1259 means you have to specify the wsdl details in the binding: <ant_> <binding.ws wsdlElement="http://helloworld#wsdl.port(HelloWorldService/HelloWorldSoapPort)<http://helloworld#wsdl.port%28HelloWorldService/HelloWorldSoapPort%29> "/> <ant_> instead of just <ant_> <binding.ws /> <slaws> ok - so not a show stopper <ant_> so nothing is broken its just a bit less clean * halehM has joined #tuscany <rfeng> 1259 is not a stopper, I think there are more things behind it (for example, how to derive the WSDL portType and endpoint) <ant_> ok so its still: far we have MUST fix as: 1247, 1248, 1265, and doc 1269 in the release notes <rfeng> we may need more time to get it completely working <ant_> rfeng, +1 <simonnash> and the samples? are they "must fix"? <ant_> yes, i guess we need to talk about them and all the diiscussion there's been <ant_> maybe we can do that right after we finish this jira list <simonnash> i have 5 mins :-( <ant_> ok lets do it now then :) <ant_> where are we? <slaws> i think we have one outstanding issue... <slaws> where to put the client code for the extension samples <simonnash> if it is client code not test code then it should be in src/main <ant_> does anyone agree? Where is it now? <simonnash> for implementation-crud, still in src/test <slaws> so at the moment the client (and the sample application code) uses to drive the sample binding/databinding/implementation is in src/test <ant_> but it is kind of test code isn't it? its testing/showing the extension works? * Amita has quit IRC (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer) ) * Amita has joined #tuscany <simonnash> on the ML we had agreen that src/test would be for Junit code that does not get built for the binary distro <Venkat> yes.. in the case of the rmi-service... it is to test that the service is up and working <simonnash> and src.main would be for sample code that does get bult <ant_> the extension samples aside for a moment, all the other samples and readme's are done now? <slaws> We have a change to make to bring the ant script in line with the mvn build following recent discussion on the list <ant_> oh, what about the DAS one thats just come? <lresende> :) <ant_> shold DAS be included in SCA? <slaws> I though there was debate about if that would go in <simonnash> i don't think so <slaws> if it's in the ant file, README etc do need doing <lresende> so, looks like after some discussion, there are some proposals to make it a separate distro with apps that shows integration between all the tuscany technologies <lresende> the issue is the dependency on das, i still need to if that would work ok with das m2 <lresende> i assume so <lresende> but i'm open to the two possibilities (in and out) <ant_> so i guess i'd be leaning on leaving it out for now, what do others think? <simonnash> there are 2 issues... whether SCA should depend on DAS and if so what should the release dependency be <slaws> there isn't currently a dependency on DAS in the test SCA distro <lresende> so, we are not shipping BigBank ? <simonnash> i would like to leave it out of 0.90 <slaws> so I would skip to 0.90 while we get out story straight <ant_> lresende, no, only a simple-bigbank <lresende> k, then this is true, no other das dependency <lresende> so, i'm ok leaving it out, this means that, when you cut the tag, you are going to remove it, but it still stays in trunk, right ? <lresende> cut tag/branch <ant_> yes ok, that sounds fine <lresende> great, thanks <slaws> ok -so no build/readmes to do for das sample <lresende> right <ant_> so back to the extension samples <ant_> if we were to do nothing more what sttae are they in now? <ant_> state <slaws> i would like to treat them as special cases and leave the client/app code in test - <simonnash> why? <slaws> because they are different kinds of samples - will that confuse the users though if they are different <simonnash> that would mean not building the client code I presume <slaws> well no being able to run out of the box <simonnash> yes that's what I mean <slaws> you would have to compile before run <simonnash> does compiler build the src/test coe or just src/main? <slaws> both <ant_> that seems fine to me, they're aimed at tuscany developers anyway <simonnash> sorry for typos <simonnash> does mvn compile and ant compile build src/test <slaws> y <slaws> IMO the cleaner "out of the box" solution is to have separate sample projects or the client an component implementation code - but I don;t think we need for 0.9 <slaws> projects for the client and <simonnash> i think this is not quitewhat we discussed on the ML.. but can't give details now because I need to focus on my phone call <simonnash> sorry will need to tune out for the next few mins <simonnash> can we continue this on the ML? <ant_> so if we just leave them as-is could we live iwth tht for 0.90? <slaws> you are right - that's not something we agreed in anyway <slaws> ok <ant_> ok, lets finish them on the ML <simonnash> thanks... really need to focus <ant_> i'd really like to know whats going on with TUSCANY-1265 but its only you two Simon's who see the problem so far <Venkat> ant_, I see that the sca_all jar has all the class files in it.. <Venkat> when I build the disb. <slaws> y - i didn't get back to looking at it - wut I will look again after this <ant_> ok, so what else is there? <slaws> did you copy the shader config from somewhere or do you know its workings in intimate detail <slaws> ? <ant_> copied it from the CXF build <slaws> k - ta <slaws> someone was looking at RAT and licenses etc <Venkat> yes me, slaws <ant_> oh yes, RAT <slaws> what's the score? <ant_> would be great to get another run of that to see how we're doing now <Venkat> yes.. will do that after this irc <slaws> were there any issues from previous run that need attention? <Venkat> other than some copyrights related to IBM, BEA and Sun... I have fixed almost all which have had no headers <Venkat> I can prob. report the ones that have these copyrights so that we may take a call on what to do about them <rfeng> can any of you give me a pointer to get the RAT? <ant_> that wold be good. another run and then say on the ML all the issues <Venkat> ok <ant_> i'm still a bit worried not many people have actually tried using the distro's, could everyone start trying to use it instead of just running things in eclipse all the time? <slaws> has anyone been tying the test distros on linux? <ant_> not me <Venkat> rfeng, http://code.google.com/p/arat/ <rfeng> oh, thanks, I thought it's in apache <slaws> ok - so I guess that means no - I can give it a spin <ant_> great <slaws> also what about contents of docs dir. i remeber there was discussion abut what to include. Is that done? <ant_> nad then the website needs updating for everything we've done in 0.90 <slaws> can we get a features list together <ant_> oh right, yes, now it just has the SCA API and some tuscany SPI <ant_> (javadoc) <ant_> do we want anything else? <slaws> should we have a README that points to where the user docs will be on the website <ant_> is just the SPI so useful, without all the other module javadoc? <slaws> what was the reason for not providing full javadoc? <ant_> would that be just the Java SCA page on the wiki or something special for 0.90? <ant_> a lot of it seems unnecessary - eg the impl classes of the script extension - so initially i just had the SPI module and waited to see what others wanted <slaws> well we need to work out how we do versioned docs. At the moment I would expect it is just a new set of pages on the wiki - maybe in the fullness of time (post 1.0) we would want a new space per version <ant_> so for now the 0.90 readme/release ntes can just point to http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANY/java-sca-subproject.html ? <slaws> yep - lets just run that by the ML though <ant_> ok <Venkat> does anybody know how we can put up our logo on our wiki.. <slaws> you can if you are a space admin <Venkat> space admin in general.. or Tuscany Space Admin ? <slaws> Tuscan space admin - do you have the rights? <slaws> anyhow I guess thats not on the critical path for the release - lets sort that later <Venkat> nope :) <Venkat> yes :) <slaws> ant_ as an aside we shouldn't use the link you provided above in our docs - we need to use the autoexported link - so we need to work at that a bit <ant_> oh ok <ant_> ok we can do that on the ML <ant_> is there anytihng else for right now? <slaws> not from me <ant_> ok. thanks everyone, i'll post a this and a summary to the ML <Venkat> not from me either.. <Venkat> thanks ant_ <Venkat> and everybody else too :)
