In another thread I believe a consensus is emerging that yoko is not
that close to being ready to graduate due to a small community
concentrated at one company, and lack of community involvement. (I
agree with this assessment.) I think this is the largest issue
facing yoko's future. From this point of view, the best action to
take would be that which most increased community involvement and
especially drew in new contributors. To exaggerate.... I see two
choices
1. We polish, write all our own docs, and get everything perfect just
like a commercial software release, hiding any progress on this
mailing list, and wait until everything we can think of is completely
done.
2. We release what we have now, explain that various parts are
incomplete, appeal for help with the docs and missing bits, and try
to make a big splash to attract more people.
Which is more likely to get more people involved more quickly?
thanks
david jencks
On Feb 16, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Darren Middleman wrote:
Hi,
I would be more in favour of releasing a M2 release than a full
1.0release. Yoko is supposed
to be more than just an ORB and I think that our 1.0 release should
reflect
this. As Edell
mentioned, in the time it could take us to get the documentation
for the ORB
together for a
1.0 release, we should be able to get the tools and binding to a
stable
state.
Cheers,
Darren
On 2/16/07, Nolan, Edell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to see us release all modules together. I think to do a
proper release of the Orb we definitley need some more
documentation and
while this is being worked on we can get the tools and bindings
stable
so they also can be released.
Edell.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mosur Ravi, Balaji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16 February 2007 16:19
To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Request for creating the M2 release.
Hi,
I am bit undecided here...
We can do a 1.0 release with just the ORB core & then when CXF has
done
its final release, then we can release the corba binding & tools
module.
(This might be more work because currently we distribute
everything!!!).
The binary release would just include the ORB & the Source release
would
include all the modules.
Would this be acceptable? We still don't have documentation of the
ORB,
so releasing would make it not much usable.
Any other ideas?
I am also open to just releasing a M2 release, this would give us
more
time to finish off documentation & include all the modules of yoko.
- Balaji
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Hogstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:48 AM
To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Request for creating the M2 release.
I know Dain is looking for a 1.0 release for Geronimo and I'm
interested in any kind of release for our next Milestone. It would
help out your brothers in Geronimo land greatly if at a minimum you
could cut a milestone in the next few days based on Rick's progress.
It would be even sweeter if Geronimo 1.2 went out with a released
version of Yoko at 1.0.
Don't fall into the Geronimo trap of waiting for things to be perfect
to make a release. You have a stable release that has been used in
TCKing Geronimo and that is a huge thing. Put out the 1.0 now, work
on web services piece for CXF and release a 1.1. It helps keep
people interested when the release train keeps moving. Also,
releasing software is a demonstrable action of the community that
shows its working together, technically vibrant and administering
oversight in the more mundane things like releasing software.
Anyway, my 2c.
So, if you could release a 1.0 in the next few days awesome...a
Milestone in the next few days...most excellent. Planning for
greater things is interesting and necessary but your user community
is humbly asking for a release; pretty please with sugar on top :)
On Feb 8, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> Geronimo has made great progress on the TCK using Yoko, and we're
> starting to put things together for 1.2 release. For the 1.2 Beta
> release Geronimo shipped with an interim snapshot version, but for
> the final 1.2 release, we'd like to use an actual release version.
> Can we get the process started to ship an M2 release? And more
> importantly, can we get it released in a more timely fashion than
> was done for the M1 release?
>
> Rick
>
