On Mar 5, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
2007/3/5, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 3:53 AM, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> According to our high-level roadmap [1] we were going to make our
> first release in Q2. Let's define what we would like to see in
our Q2
> release. If there are no objections let's discuss what we want that
> release being able to do.
That was a long distance guess, not The Law :)
Now that we are closer, we probably need to re-assess. For example,
I'd much rather see a sequence of "developer releases" leading up to
our 1.0, whenever that will be, with each dev release building on the
last.
>
> I suggest that we focus on stability measured by being able to
> successfully run a few solid applications and by pass rates for the
> test suites.
Absolutely. I thought that is what we're doing already :)
> So, I think in Q2 we should 1) run reasonable set of
applications 2)
> have reasonable testing infrastructure and 3) pass reasonable
set of
> test suites.
Yes
>
> Though we will be happy to accept all the patches that fix existing
> problems or add missing functionality, I suggest that people who
hang
> around will focus on those scenarios that we will choose here
I have no idea what that means. We still need to continue completion
- our goal is a compatible implementation of Java SE 5, so we need to
continue working in that direction.
The direction is diverse. We may try to do everything at once
but may do some things first and some - next. They call it
priorities :)
Priorities are fine - but the goal is Java SE 5, so we should then
simply prioritize our path to that goal.
>
> Objections? :)
>
> If there are no objections again, I'd like to propose that we will
> target:
>
> 1) keeping all the enabled apps in the "up" state
> (we will create a list of enabled apps and put them all into cruise
> control)
+1
>
> 2) running 2-3 open source server-side software
>
+1
>
> 3) running 2-3 open source developers tools
+1
>
>
> 4) setting up necessary testing infrastructure and having near 100%
> pass rates for the suites we have
Sure, and this is already in progress.
>
>
> 5) what about commercial software? Some time ago we agreed that
it's
> OK to report failures/regression of commercial software. Should we
> have them in the "requirements" to our Q2 release?
Again, I don't support the idea of One Big Q2 release. I'd rather
see us setup a sequence of developer releases making incremental
improvement.
I'm not against that sequence. But we should have something for which
we will say that it's able to do this and that. We want be able to
provide
good documentation for each release in the sequence. We will release
something better tested, better documented, etc than just a release
in the sequence. This will be a Q2 release.
I think that each release should be well tested and documented. We
should do the release train, with each release getting better and
better - no regressions unless we all agree there's a darn good
reason for it.
>
> Since currently the most stable platform is Windows/IA32 I suggest
> that Harmony Q2 will be released on that specific platform
Of course win32, but we also need to do the release on at least one
flavor of linux.
Of course. But not necessarily at the same time.
Sorry - I disagree with you. I really think that we need to have a
release for not just the windows platform. Our best chance for
widespread distribution is going to be linux. There are multiple
packaging streams we can take advantage of (apt, rpm, yum, whatever
Suse uses...) to get our software out in front of users that need a
free/open Java runtime. Clearly microsoft isn't going to help us
here, and the windows crowd doesn't care as much about having a free/
open runtime to use.
Lets be strategic about this.
geir
Thanks,
Mikhail
geir
>
> Opinions?
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> [1] http://harmony.apache.org/roadmap.html
