On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Simon Laws <simonsl...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:24 PM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Mike Edwards >> <mike.edwards.inglen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Luciano Resende wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:37 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Its three weeks since the M5 release now and it would be good to try >>>>> to do more frequent releases so how about aiming for another release >>>>> in a few weeks time? Don't need to do anything about it yet, just if >>>>> you have things you're working on for the next release keep this time >>>>> frame in mind - so that would be done in two weeks leaving the last >>>>> week to sort out the release and voting. Does that suite everyone? >>>>> >>>>> Â ...ant >>>>> >>>> >>>> To my surprise, I still hear from people that are using Tuscany that >>>> they haven't look too serious in the 2.x yet, because it's a milestone >>>> release. Any reason not to call this our 2.0 release ? >>>> >>>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> +1 to another release - and I agree with Luciano, time to encourage folk to >>> use 2.x so I'm in favour of making this a full release. We're getting close >>> on OASIS compliance and the functionality is looking good. >>> >> >> I agree calling these "milestone" releases puts people of using it. >> How about though we call this next release something else (beta?) and >> do the one after that as 2.0? That would give a little more time to >> polish things so when people do try it they get a good experience. >> There is still quite a lot that could do with tidying - the samples, >> website, etc, - and I'm not sure we'd get much of that done in just >> the next three weeks along with all the other work that is currently >> being done. >> >> ...ant >> > > +1 for next release being a beta. Once we catch up with recent changes > in the JCA otests and complete the last few tests elsewhere we'll be > looking good, given the current state of the OASIS tests, in > demonstrating the full set of "core" function which I believe includes > Assembly, JCA, JCI, Policy, WS. I put "core" as this is the minimum > set of function required to actually run the otests. > > The otests may still change of course but it seems right to be going > for a beta so that we can then work on polishing the runtime, docs > etc. while people take a look at the beta and report back. >
That sounds ok to me. Going by the timing suggested earlier in this thread we should be doing the release about now, so I'd like to do that as soon as we've sorted out all the current build and otest failures, which should mean an RC sometime this week if that fits in with everyone. I've created a Java-SCA-2.0-Beta1 JIRA category for the release so use that for jiras for things wanted in the release. ...ant
