Is the name change a requirement for a 3.0? The problem is that this will break compatibility making it extremely difficult to establish performance in existing applications while preserving the ability to rollback to a known good code base. I would have to give a -1 to this. We need to validate the release against running systems before changing the namespaces. If that means keeping this a 2.x release, that's fine.
What is the driver for the maven artifacts? Is this an apache process issue or a feature request for some communities? Bryan > On May 13, 2014, at 7:10 AM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.re...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. >>
