+1
> On May 13, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Gregg Wonderly <[email protected]> wrote: > > We might want to separate the two paths from a release perspective. > > The namespace changes should happen on a major numbered release. The build > change might be better targeted at 3.1? > > Just my thoughts on making things happen sooner with smaller overall number > of issues that might then occur and need fixes. > > If 3.0 is too volatile, that won't be good! > > Gregg > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On May 13, 2014, at 6:10 AM, Dennis Reedy <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 11, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Peter<[email protected]> 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. >>>
