On Jan 2, 2008 6:37 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 2, 2008 5:04 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 2, 2008 2:20 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding > bug > > > > list > > > > > [1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be > > > > fixed. > > > > > I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some > > > > feature > > > > > of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't > > > obviously > > > > > some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to > > apply > > > > this > > > > > consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different > lists. > > > Non > > > > the > > > > > less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others > as > > > I'm > > > > > trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I > > can. > > > > I'm > > > > > not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up > for > > > the > > > > > remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1. So > if > > > you > > > > > are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year > > please > > > > use > > > > > this as a guide. > > > > > > > > > > In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to > ensure > > > 1.1. > > > > > is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at > > > this > > > > is > > > > > if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release > > > candidate > > > > in > > > > > January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the > > > > (hopefully) > > > > > straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process > > will > > > > raise > > > > > more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal > with > > > > also. > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts about how we approach this? > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy > JIRA > > > > that > > > > relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time > > round. > > > > These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to > either > > > fix > > > > or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any > feedback > > on > > > > how > > > > people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding. > > > > > > > > Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut > > the > > > > branch. In particular, > > > > > > > > JMS > > > > Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few > > > > adjustments to make) > > > > Some help with the Saxon dependency > > > > > > > > This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet. > > > > However, > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1? > > > > If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1before > > > > Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ? > > > > > > > > Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix > > but > > > I > > > > need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the > > branch > > > > (once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend > > some > > > > time > > > > fixing JIRA. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > Does taking the branch have to wait for JMS? I'm a little behind so it > > may > > > be a day or two before the binding is in a releasable state but the > > branch > > > could still happen now and I'll can just copy over any changes. > > > > > > ...ant > > > > > Ant > > > > Can I ask what version of Active MQ the new code will be using? > > > > Simon > > > > > Its on 4.1.1 presently but as 5.0 is the latest i'd been thinking about > moving up to that. > > ...ant > OK, If we can get it working on the latest that sounds preferable assuming there if not lots of work involved.
I haven't looked at the dependencies for 5.0 but for 4.1.1 there are some that it looks like we need to knock out, for example, jmdns-1.0-RC2.jarlooks a bit suspect as it appears to be LGPL. There are other licenses to check and also a load that may be optional that we can just remove. Nudge me if you make the change and I'll start looking at the new dependencies. Regards Simon
