I think also need to decide if qa_refactor does become defacto 3.0, do we do the following:
Change the com.sun.jini namespace to org.apache.river Change the com.artima namespace to org.apache.river Move to a Maven project and decide on module group and artifact ids Regards Dennis On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Bryan Thompson <br...@systap.com> wrote: > Why don't we do a pre-release from this branch? Does apache support this > concept? Give it some time in the wild to shake down the bugs? > > If not. Let's just release it and document that there is a lot of churn. > Give it a 3.0 designation and be prepared to release a series of updates > as bugs are identified. The key would be API stability so people could try > it and roll back as necessary for production deployments onto a known good > code base. > > Bryan > > > On May 13, 2014, at 3:18 AM, Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > > > >> On 13/05/2014 9:59 AM, Dennis Reedy wrote: > >> Apologies for not chiming in earlier, I've been running around with my > air > >> on fire for the past couple of weeks. As to whether River is dead, I > don't > >> think it is, maybe mostly dead (in which case a visit to Miracle Max > may be > >> in order). I think River is static, but not dead. The technology is so > >> worth at least maintaining, fixing bugs and continued care and feeding. > >> > >> The issue to me is that the project has no direction, and River has no > >> community that participates and makes decisions as a community. There > has > >> been tons of work in qa_refactor, is that the future for River? Or is > it a > >> fork? > > > > There are develpers who are concerned about the number of fixes made in > qa-refactor, but no one yet has identified an issue I haven't been able to > fix very quickly. In any case the public api and serial form is backward > compatible. > > > > I encourage the community to test it, find out for themselves and report > any issues. > > > >> Regards > >> > >> Dennis > >> > >> > >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Greg Trasuk<tras...@stratuscom.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> On May 11, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Peter<j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ultimately, if community involvement continues to decline, we may have > >>> to send River to the attic. > >>>> Distributed computing is difficult and we often bump into the > >>> shortcomings of the java platform, I think these difficulties are why > >>> developers have trouble agreeing on solutions. > >>>> But I think more importantly we need increased user involvement. > >>>> > >>>> Is there any advise or resources we can draw on from other Apache > >>> projects? > >>> It may be, ultimately, that the community has failed and River is > headed > >>> to the Attic. The usual question is “Can the project round up the 3 > ‘+1’ > >>> votes required to make an Apache release?” Historically, we have been > able > >>> to do that, at least for maintenance releases, and I don’t see that > >>> changing, at least for a while. > >>> > >>> The problem is future development and the ongoing health of the > project. > >>> On this point, we don’t seem to have consensus on where we want the > >>> project to go, and there’s limited enthusiasm for user-focused > >>> requirements. Also, my calls to discuss the health of the project > have had > >>> no response (well, there was a tangent about the build system, but > >>> personally I think that misses the point). > >>> > >>> I will include in the board report the fact that no-one has expressed > an > >>> interest in taking over as PMC chair, and ask if there are any other > expert > >>> resources that can help. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Greg Trasuk. > > >
