Re: Roadmap

[Tim Moloney]

I agree with the proposed roadmap.  My only comment is on the name of 
the plugin.  bundleplugin doesn't follow the Maven convention of 
maven-foo-plugin or foo-maven-plugin.

Richard S. Hall wrote:
Richard S. Hall wrote:
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
A release as TLP is very important as it's going to be available in
the main maven repository instead of the incubating one which other
projects can't use to make releases.
I'd love to see the release of the bundle plugin to use it in the 
Maven project.

The maven-bundle-plugin would be included in the release since it is 
used by the framework and the shell bundles.

Actually, I have been wanting to 1) change the plugin to be a 
top-level subproject in the svn repo, which would also mean 2) 
changing its package (from 
org.apache.felix.framework.tools.maven2.bundleplugin to 
org.apache.felix.bundleplugin), and I would also 3) like to change 
its name from maven-bundle-plugin to perhaps just bundleplugin.

Ok, rather than just say that I want to do the above, I decided to 
just go ahead and do it. I have moved maven-bundle-plugin to the trunk 
directory, renamed it to bundleplugin (and artifactId to 
org.apache.felix.bundleplugin), changed its package structure, and 
updated all POM files that used the plugin to refer to the new name 
(thanks to Karl for a shell script to do that). I rebuilt everything 
from scratch with an empty repo and it build for me...and I made Karl 
try it too.

After doing "svn update", you will need to delete the directory 
'tools/maven2/maven-bundle-plugin'...

This will be part of the previous discussion that we had about 
reorganizing the svn repo to have all subprojects have their own 
top-level directory in the trunk, with related modules of the 
sub-project under the sub-project directory rather than in the trunk. 
I plan to start making this mods to the repo shortly.

Just like the above, Karl and I have started to reorganize the repo. 
The eventadmin project was refactored and I will do iPOJO next. Once 
we get UPnP and MOSGi moved to the new approach, we should have a 
manageable trunk directory! :-)

-> richard


-> richard


my 0.02

On 5/20/07, Karl Pauls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Felix Community,

in order to follow-up on recent discussions - and our new status as a
TLP - I'd like to get a roadmap towards a new release going. Let me
try to get a few thoughts across and see what the general reactions
are :-)

Looking back at recent comments and events I believe it would be
beneficial to get a new (and first) official release out of the door
as soon as possible. That would make it more clear where we are at the
moment and give Felix users something to build trust upon.

Personally, I'd prefer to get a "core release" out quickly. I know
that a lot of the subprojects are eager to get something out but we
need to discuss how to handle those releases and I don't want to delay
the core release because of that.

That said, taking the last release into account I guess, it would be
fairly easy to get the involved parts into shape and released within
the next month or two (namely, main, framework, plugin, shell,
shell.tui, bundlerepository, and org.osgi.core).

Richard tells me that he has still some stuff to commit to clean-up
the required bundle functionality, wants to address FELIX-203, and I
do have two small patches for the extension bundle stuff.

Other then that, we would need to remove the incubator references,
create proper NOTICE files, figure out a changelog, and tackle a few
questions namely,

1) Should it be yet another tarball release or does somebody 
volunteer to
get our installer up and running again?

2) Is this going to be our 1.0 release?

In regard to 2), I'm leaning towards a 1.0 release to emphasize our 
status as a
graduated project and the fact that the core Felix technology is 
stable
and usable now. I do not think it is necessary to tie the 1.0 
release to
complete spec compliance, since being below 1.0 generally has a "not
quite ready" stigma attached to it, which is not the case. Our goal is
spec compliance and we will have to be clear in which areas we are not
yet compliant, but Felix is definitely far enough along to be 
considered
stable and a 1.0 release. However, if there are strong feelings to the
contrary, my opinion could be changed.

What do you all think?

regards,

Karl

--
Karl Pauls
[EMAIL PROTECTED]