----- Original message ----- > 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
I'd like to suggest org.apache.river.impl, so it doesn't stomp all over new api. > Change the com.artima namespace to org.apache.river Perhaps org.apache.river.artima given that it was quite an achievement at the time. > Move to a Maven project and decide on module group and artifact ids Or at least a Maven compatible structure. Any ideas what to do with jsk-policy? Given that this is installed into the ext directory, or into a directory defined as an extension directory, it is loaded by the extension classloader. It contains classes that are duplicated by jsk-platform, considering it's place in the ClassLoader hierarchy, shouldn't jsk-platform depend on jsk-policy? Regards, Peter. > > 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. > > > > >
