I'm +1 for having a set of standard requirements for the samples to be promoted to trunk and released. That's why I started the samples checklist wiki page in the first place.
However, I don't think we need another two month long thread in order to determine which these standards should be. We already had this discussion and we can just summarize it. As I mentioned before on the other thread, I'm fine with doing the release only with getting-started/ samples. With that in mind, I would say we shouldn't delay 2.0-Beta3 any more. It's a minor release anyway and most importantly users need the runtime code released. So I'm +1 for releasing 2.0-Beta3 now. On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Simon Nash <n...@apache.org> wrote: > ant elder wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Simon Nash <n...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Following on from the discussion in [1], I'd like to establish >>> whether or not the Tuscany developer community agrees that we >>> should have some minimum standards for a sample to be part of trunk >>> and be delivered in a released binary distribution. >>> >>> If there's agreement that we should establish this principle and >>> have some minimum standards, I'll start another discussion thread >>> on what those minimum standards should be. >>> >>> I am +1 that we should have some minimum standards for a sample to be >>> in trunk and to be released as part of the binary distribution. >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tuscany-dev/201104.mbox/%3c4d9b41c8.50...@apache.org%3E >>> >>> >>> >> I'm -1 Simon. That doesn't mean I think we should have rubbish >> samples, i just think the time spent rehashing this again would be >> better spent actually writing some samples and documentation. We've >> just spent two months debating the finer points of how to do samples >> and ended up with just 3 in trunk which not even everyone is >> completely happy with. We do have a clearer understanding now of what >> people think but now we need to just get on and do some. >> >> The Apache process is clear - it takes three +1s to do a release - it >> doesn't matter what rules happen to have been come up here in this >> thread 6 months down the road if there is a release with a sample >> that doesn't work but the release gets the votes then that is fine. >> >> Tuscany is the hardest project I know of in Apache to do releases, and >> i've seen a lot of Apache projects. The actual build process takes >> ages and then we drag it out for ages before people will vote and seem >> to make it obligatory to redo it several times over before people will >> vote +1. Thats shooting ourselves in the foot IMHO and instead of >> looking for more rules to make it even harder to get a release out it >> would be better to look for ways to get people to be more willing to >> promptly vote for releases. We'd get more releases much more often and >> then whats the big deal if some new sample slips through with a bug if >> it can be fixed in the next release which is only a short time away. >> >> 2.x has taken a long time and trunk had got a bit full up of samples >> that had been broken with all the refactoring and changes, we've taken >> all those out now and things are much more stable so if we're a little >> be diligent when adding samples now things should remain in better >> shape. >> >> ...ant >> >> >> Actually it should be easier / quicker to do releases if the trunk > samples meet a reasonable quality standard and are kept working on > an ongoing basis. Also, having some criteria for which samples are > included in trunk would mean that we can release the trunk contents > at any time without needing to debate which samples should be in the > release and removing those that are unsuitable. > > Simon > >
