On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ant pointed out to me privately that it looked like I was trying, in >> this mail, to exclude features that are already in trunk. That is not >> the case, hence the "+ any extra struff we need to decide on. >> Suggestions?" comment. Am just trying to get us thinking about what >> point, in functionality terms, we switch from milestone releases to a >> beta release. >> >> Simon >> > > I think the question should be, are we going to wait for a official > release of some of these specs or not, and if so, which ones. Other > then that, I believe we are ready for a 2.x release in the near > future... and BTW I could help with the Release Manager task. > >
I think it would be good to wait till there are some official final published specs if thats not going to be too far away, i heard that may happen around February which sounds ok. Doing a 2.0 release before any specs are final seems premature, and there is quite a lot we still need to finish anyway. Is there any reason we'd need to go for a 2.0 done sooner than that? The 2nd email asked about switching from milestone releases to a beta release which is a different question. One comment on that is that there were disagreements on what to name the releases leading up to the the Tuscany 1.0 which seemed to come from there not being precise definitions on what names like milestone/0.9x/beta/RC etc mean exactly so different people have different expectations. So what are the reasons for wanting to change to beta? If beta is going to imply no more API/SPI changes (and thats what it does imply to some) then I dont think we're quite ready for that, if beta is just going to mean "closer to being done so come try it out but things may still change a bit" then i dont really mind either way. I guess a similar thing goes for when to call it 2.0. Some say sooner as then you'll get more people trying it out, others say later so its more polished so when people try it they're more impressed. I do think we released 1.0 too early and the rough edges put some people off and we should try to avoid that with 2.0. I also think having 2.0 waiting for things to get done is a good motivator to make things get done. Along with the conformance tests passing for those main specs, I'd like to see the distributed domain working well, some of the non-spec tuscany extensions working well (i.e. consistent support for things like async/callbacks/java/wsdl/wireformats etc), an easy to use distribution, and decent samples and documentation. We're not that far from those but there is work to do. FWIW I'd been thinking along the lines of a release just before Christmas which in my mind I've been calling M5, then another release or two before a 2.0 final depending on whats happening with the specs perhaps around March. ...ant
