Hi Kelvin, The RC1a distribution is much clearer, thanks.
- Ron ----- Original Message ---- From: kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 6:44:19 AM Subject: Re: Tuscany SDO M2 candidate distribution I have just posted to the tuscany-dev mailing list to indicate the availablity of an RC1a distribution based on your comments Ron, thanks again. Regards, Kelvin. On 23/09/06, Ron Gavlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Kelvin, > > Thanks for your hard work putting together an RC1 distribution with both > source and binaries. A few thoughts... > > 1. For the binary distribution, I didn't see the sdo tools and plugin > classes. I would suggest each appear in a separate jar similar to how M1 > was packaged. So, there would be one binary zip with the suite of > dependent jars plus individual jars for sdo-spec, sdo-impl, sdo-tools, > and sdo-plugin. > > 2. For the source distribution, I found having two files named using > sdo-impl and sdo-spec confusing. The confusion is due to the fact that > sdo-impl truly means the sdo-impl component/project for the binary > distribution but for the source distribution, sdo-impl really means > sdo-impl + sdo-tools + sdo-plugin. In order to avoid such confusion, I > would suggest you provide one source zip file containing source for > sdo-spec, sdo-impl, sdo-tools, and sdo-plugin. I think this is clearer > and more consistent. > > Thanks again, > > - Ron > > kelvin goodson wrote: > > I posted a proposal to tuscany-dev a couple of days back > > http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg08105.html > > > > So my plan is to crank the handle on SDO Java and when its looking > > good enough to post release candidates, I'll make them available on > > people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson as has been done before for our C++ > > releases. > > > > Regards, Kelvin. > > > > On 21/09/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sep 21, 2006, at 8:32 AM, Ron Gavlin wrote: > >> > >> > Kelvin, > >> > > >> > Thanks for the update. Do you plan to make a "release candidate" > >> > source distribution? If so, do you plan to make it in the same time > >> > frame as the binary one? > >> > > >> > >> I'm not sure what Kelvin is thinking here but for SCA I was not > >> planning on doing this until we had a real "release candidate" - > >> defined as being things that we were actually prepared to vote on. > >> > >> In the run up to that point I would build SNAPSHOT binary distros > >> based on "allegedly good" SVN revisions - the corresponding source > >> distro would be the content of the tree as of that revision. > >> > >> -- > >> Jeremy > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
