Stephen, [Replying to a comment of yours in the "cornerstone updates" thread, but I want to keep it focused on the A4 Release Plan issues.]
> I would like to suggest that the current sources be tagged prior to > committing these changes, and that after committing we establish a 1.0 > release tag for the above components and do a formal release of the > five. With that in place, we will be able to proceed with support on > the rollover of James from CM to SM with confidence. I don't believe that your process description is sufficient. I specifically notice the phrase "a formal release of the five", which I presume refers to the "thread, datasource, masterstore, connection and schedular components" from earlier in your message. The objection that I have is related to the perception of another piecemeal offering. I'm sorry to be a pain in the arse, but consider Ulrich Mayring's reply to my request that the Avalon PMC undertake a coordinated Release: Right now I am trying to upgrade our productive installation of Avalon/Phoenix/Excalibur/Cornerstone to a reasonably current version. But there are so many problems, undocumented changes and puzzling situations that I have zero confidence the new system - should I ever get it to work with our applications - will be better than the current one. Looking back, the Avalon project last announced a Release Build of Excalibur 4.1 in Jan 2002, a Release Build of Avalon Frameworks in Jan 2002, a Release Build of LogKit 1.1 in Sept 2002, and a Release Buiild of Phoenix in Sept 2002. Actually, I see a 4.1.3 Release of A-F in Oct 2002, but no one did the announcement. The same is true of Phoenix 4.0.3. And, as far as I can see, Cornerstone hasn't ever been done as a formal release. In theory, Cornerstone is part of Phoenix, but if you look at the Phoenix build, you won't find the cornerstone jar(s), nor will you find any under http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-avalon/release/. None of this even addresses other issues, such as cleaning up the CVS modules or synchronizing the documentation with the code. I am emphasizing a coordinated Release. I am rejecting, in context, the "there is no such thing as Avalon" perspective, and insisting that there *is* something called Avalon. At the very least, there is an Avalon PMC, and it has the responsibility to ensure that there is a well-defined packaging of its technology that works together. Taking a piecemeal approach won't get the whole job done. --- Noel -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
