Re: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
On 9/29/07, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why, and says who? These things are not cast in stone and we have the ability to adapt the process to make it more productive. [...] I don't really care. Staging a release is not a big deal, just invariably pointless for an alpha because 99% of the time no one will actually do anything with the staged copy. It's more important that the stuff gets cranked out for feedback so it can be fixed. I mean even with releases hardly anyone looks. It's nice idea in theory but if it serves no practical purpose what is the point. I was hopeful that the staged copy would illicit feedback but doesn't seem to have. Not much anyway. I agree with you but, even if those things are not cast in stone, it's commonly used. If we were to adapt for alphas, betas or anything else, I think it makes more sense to discuss it a bit instead of doing it on your side without telling anyone. That's not the first time you're doing this and it's personally confusing to me. Cheers, Stéphane I only say this because I see very little, if any feed back on release plugins, and even released versions of Maven. The best feedback I get is from plugins that I just crank out from Mojo and I get two or three people providing feedback and that really helps. I mean even staging it sometimes doesn't help if you look at the last release of Archetype. Releases must be scrutinized (even though they aren't) but let the alphas sail out fast and furious for feedback. We don't intermediary releases out fast enough because it still must be a pain in the ass for people which means only the determined will build from source which means we miss out on the vast majority of potential feedback. People should lock down there plugin versions (the enforcer plugin on the next release will help with that, and they should turn off any automagic update policy) so that we can release this stuff often and people can try it as they like. We either adapt or people will continue annoy our users. People don't release often because something is wrong in our process. It is still deemed cumbersome because we still have the same pool of people doing releases and not many new people. Three +1 votes should really mean trying the software and actually reviewing code but we know that no one does that so what is difference really between pointing at a revision or trunk or putting some binaries somewhere? -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Large Systems Suck: This rule is 100% transitive. If you build one, you suck -- S.Yegge - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
On 30 Sep 07, at 12:41 AM 30 Sep 07, Stephane Nicoll wrote: On 9/29/07, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why, and says who? These things are not cast in stone and we have the ability to adapt the process to make it more productive. [...] I don't really care. Staging a release is not a big deal, just invariably pointless for an alpha because 99% of the time no one will actually do anything with the staged copy. It's more important that the stuff gets cranked out for feedback so it can be fixed. I mean even with releases hardly anyone looks. It's nice idea in theory but if it serves no practical purpose what is the point. I was hopeful that the staged copy would illicit feedback but doesn't seem to have. Not much anyway. I agree with you but, even if those things are not cast in stone, it's commonly used. If we were to adapt for alphas, betas or anything else, I think it makes more sense to discuss it a bit instead of doing it on your side without telling anyone. That's not the first time you're doing this and it's personally confusing to me. http://www.nabble.com/Doing-alpha-releases-faster- tf4416820s177.html#a12597781 Cheers, Stéphane I only say this because I see very little, if any feed back on release plugins, and even released versions of Maven. The best feedback I get is from plugins that I just crank out from Mojo and I get two or three people providing feedback and that really helps. I mean even staging it sometimes doesn't help if you look at the last release of Archetype. Releases must be scrutinized (even though they aren't) but let the alphas sail out fast and furious for feedback. We don't intermediary releases out fast enough because it still must be a pain in the ass for people which means only the determined will build from source which means we miss out on the vast majority of potential feedback. People should lock down there plugin versions (the enforcer plugin on the next release will help with that, and they should turn off any automagic update policy) so that we can release this stuff often and people can try it as they like. We either adapt or people will continue annoy our users. People don't release often because something is wrong in our process. It is still deemed cumbersome because we still have the same pool of people doing releases and not many new people. Three +1 votes should really mean trying the software and actually reviewing code but we know that no one does that so what is difference really between pointing at a revision or trunk or putting some binaries somewhere? -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Large Systems Suck: This rule is 100% transitive. If you build one, you suck -- S.Yegge - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
+1 I am obviousy waiting for feedback. Raphaël 2007/9/29, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Raphael and I have been doing a lot of work on ArchetypeNG and I would like to release a series of alphas before we do the official switch over. I think it's working nicely now but still needs a lot of work but I want to start getting feedback. It will remain using the archetypeng moniker until it's deemed production quality but it's working well for people to use. I've also integrated and extended the Archy support so users will never have to guess what Archetypes are available. Thanks, Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
As an addition to my too quicl vote, What do we do for the actual opened jira on 2.0-alpha-1 ? Do we reschedule them for 2.0-alpha-2 ? I create the jira tag for this purpose, but wait for infos before moving issues. Raphaël 2007/9/30, Raphaël Piéroni [EMAIL PROTECTED]: +1 I am obviousy waiting for feedback. Raphaël 2007/9/29, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Raphael and I have been doing a lot of work on ArchetypeNG and I would like to release a series of alphas before we do the official switch over. I think it's working nicely now but still needs a lot of work but I want to start getting feedback. It will remain using the archetypeng moniker until it's deemed production quality but it's working well for people to use. I've also integrated and extended the Archy support so users will never have to guess what Archetypes are available. Thanks, Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
On 30 Sep 07, at 12:41 AM 30 Sep 07, Stephane Nicoll wrote: On 9/29/07, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why, and says who? These things are not cast in stone and we have the ability to adapt the process to make it more productive. [...] I don't really care. Staging a release is not a big deal, just invariably pointless for an alpha because 99% of the time no one will actually do anything with the staged copy. It's more important that the stuff gets cranked out for feedback so it can be fixed. I mean even with releases hardly anyone looks. It's nice idea in theory but if it serves no practical purpose what is the point. I was hopeful that the staged copy would illicit feedback but doesn't seem to have. Not much anyway. I agree with you but, even if those things are not cast in stone, it's commonly used. If we were to adapt for alphas, betas or anything else, I think it makes more sense to discuss it a bit instead of doing it on your side without telling anyone. That's not the first time you're doing this and it's personally confusing to me. All I want is a mechanism that encourages more use in the intermediary stages. It takes more then a week to push out subsequent releases for an alpha, the release plugin gets incrementally worse and has been breaking things on subsequent releases itself because it's not tested enough before pushing it out the door making the whole process more painful. The staging plugin was never meant as a solution and it's not all that great either. We are a project which encourages the use of binaries and agile development. We don't have an easy for people even to test in certain cases. If you start with no local repository and repositories in your settings activated by a profile with repositories it is unworkable. For tools like Archetype where you start with no POM the settings won't be used and there is no way to test it other then to give someone an archive they have to unpack locally or they have to build it themselves. Neither of these options are fantastic. Between our release model taking so long, people historically not looking at releases (which is normal people don't have a lot of spare time to look at everything), our tooling not being quite up to snuff, the staging plugin being a stopgap, and the release plugin breaking things with subsequent releases (though Dan is working on the GPG plugin I see) it becomes very hard to get these changes out to users to utilize and provide feedback. If we don't make this easy, fast and painless for users we lose them. A user having to wait 3 days to try a bug fixed version of an alpha while a developer is focused on it is painful. To be able to release it as it would be used in the wild is the best way. I have three very large clients who are very flexible in that they would try alphas of certainly things in their lifecycle. But they will not build from source, they will not introduce snapshot repositories into their builds in order to consume changes. Build from source is just not an option for a team who is suppose to be consuming this technology. Using snapshot repositories is just too unpredictable given the current mechanism, though I have tried to use them in order to consume changes it's just not practical given the instability so snapshots repositories have been ruled out. The groups that I'm working with cannot be the only groups like this in the world. If more alphas were produced it's very easy with a good parent POM to change the version and attempt using an alpha in a build. I would like to be able to crank out alphas as fast as humanly possible so we stop losing this feedback. I want to make the alpha process less painful for users so that more things are found so that it is possible to have betas that have been suitably tested. This simply is not the case with our plugins because we are missing feedback during the entire span of time between releases. I am pleading with you guys to help not make this process painful, tied down with bureaucracy and get incremental changes out in a usable form which Maven users are accustom to consuming. Building from source and snapshot repositories are just too much to expect from users who are simply trying to verify that issues have been corrected. It is unfortunate that using snapshots it is not clear what you are going to get but that's the situation we have right now and I think we would do ourselves a great service to: 1) Reduce the time required to release alphas i.e. take three +1 votes and kick it out 2) Realize that people do not have a lot of time here and the process of waiting 3 days is not adding much value because I would argue that the second the vote goes up anyone really interested is going to look at it very shortly 3) That in order for changes to be consumed by average users who are willing to give us feed back it has to be easy
Re: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
Jason van Zyl wrote: On 30 Sep 07, at 12:41 AM 30 Sep 07, Stephane Nicoll wrote: On 9/29/07, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why, and says who? These things are not cast in stone and we have the ability to adapt the process to make it more productive. [...] I don't really care. Staging a release is not a big deal, just invariably pointless for an alpha because 99% of the time no one will actually do anything with the staged copy. It's more important that the stuff gets cranked out for feedback so it can be fixed. I mean even with releases hardly anyone looks. It's nice idea in theory but if it serves no practical purpose what is the point. I was hopeful that the staged copy would illicit feedback but doesn't seem to have. Not much anyway. I agree with you but, even if those things are not cast in stone, it's commonly used. If we were to adapt for alphas, betas or anything else, I think it makes more sense to discuss it a bit instead of doing it on your side without telling anyone. That's not the first time you're doing this and it's personally confusing to me. All I want is a mechanism that encourages more use in the intermediary stages. It takes more then a week to push out subsequent releases for an alpha, the release plugin gets incrementally worse and has been breaking things on subsequent releases itself because it's not tested enough before pushing it out the door making the whole process more painful. The staging plugin was never meant as a solution and it's not all that great either. We are a project which encourages the use of binaries and agile development. We don't have an easy for people even to test in certain cases. If you start with no local repository and repositories in your settings activated by a profile with repositories it is unworkable. For tools like Archetype where you start with no POM the settings won't be used and there is no way to test it other then to give someone an archive they have to unpack locally or they have to build it themselves. Neither of these options are fantastic. Between our release model taking so long, people historically not looking at releases (which is normal people don't have a lot of spare time to look at everything), our tooling not being quite up to snuff, the staging plugin being a stopgap, and the release plugin breaking things with subsequent releases (though Dan is working on the GPG plugin I see) it becomes very hard to get these changes out to users to utilize and provide feedback. If we don't make this easy, fast and painless for users we lose them. A user having to wait 3 days to try a bug fixed version of an alpha while a developer is focused on it is painful. To be able to release it as it would be used in the wild is the best way. I have three very large clients who are very flexible in that they would try alphas of certainly things in their lifecycle. But they will not build from source, they will not introduce snapshot repositories into their builds in order to consume changes. Build from source is just not an option for a team who is suppose to be consuming this technology. Using snapshot repositories is just too unpredictable given the current mechanism, though I have tried to use them in order to consume changes it's just not practical given the instability so snapshots repositories have been ruled out. The groups that I'm working with cannot be the only groups like this in the world. If more alphas were produced it's very easy with a good parent POM to change the version and attempt using an alpha in a build. I would like to be able to crank out alphas as fast as humanly possible so we stop losing this feedback. I want to make the alpha process less painful for users so that more things are found so that it is possible to have betas that have been suitably tested. This simply is not the case with our plugins because we are missing feedback during the entire span of time between releases. I am pleading with you guys to help not make this process painful, tied down with bureaucracy and get incremental changes out in a usable form which Maven users are accustom to consuming. Building from source and snapshot repositories are just too much to expect from users who are simply trying to verify that issues have been corrected. It is unfortunate that using snapshots it is not clear what you are going to get but that's the situation we have right now and I think we would do ourselves a great service to: 1) Reduce the time required to release alphas i.e. take three +1 votes and kick it out 2) Realize that people do not have a lot of time here and the process of waiting 3 days is not adding much value because I would argue that the second the vote goes up anyone really interested is going to look at it very shortly 3) That in order for changes to be consumed by average users who are willing to give us feed back it has to be easy to use these changes. I
RE: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
+1 -Original Message- From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 1:04 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1 Raphael and I have been doing a lot of work on ArchetypeNG and I would like to release a series of alphas before we do the official switch over. I think it's working nicely now but still needs a lot of work but I want to start getting feedback. It will remain using the archetypeng moniker until it's deemed production quality but it's working well for people to use. I've also integrated and extended the Archy support so users will never have to guess what Archetypes are available. Thanks, Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
+1 Nice work on archetypeNG ! IHMO this gives maven a kiler feature compared to other build systems. Nico. 2007/9/29, Brian E. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED]: +1 -Original Message- From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 1:04 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1 Raphael and I have been doing a lot of work on ArchetypeNG and I would like to release a series of alphas before we do the official switch over. I think it's working nicely now but still needs a lot of work but I want to start getting feedback. It will remain using the archetypeng moniker until it's deemed production quality but it's working well for people to use. I've also integrated and extended the Archy support so users will never have to guess what Archetypes are available. Thanks, Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
On 9/28/07, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raphael and I have been doing a lot of work on ArchetypeNG and I would like to release a series of alphas before we do the official switch over. I think it's working nicely now but still needs a lot of work but I want to start getting feedback. Is there a staged release we can take a look at? -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
On 29 Sep 07, at 10:43 AM 29 Sep 07, nicolas de loof wrote: +1 Nice work on archetypeNG ! IHMO this gives maven a kiler feature compared to other build systems. If Maven were a build system that would be true. :-) Nico. 2007/9/29, Brian E. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED]: +1 -Original Message- From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 1:04 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1 Raphael and I have been doing a lot of work on ArchetypeNG and I would like to release a series of alphas before we do the official switch over. I think it's working nicely now but still needs a lot of work but I want to start getting feedback. It will remain using the archetypeng moniker until it's deemed production quality but it's working well for people to use. I've also integrated and extended the Archy support so users will never have to guess what Archetypes are available. Thanks, Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
On 29 Sep 07, at 10:53 AM 29 Sep 07, Wendy Smoak wrote: On 9/28/07, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raphael and I have been doing a lot of work on ArchetypeNG and I would like to release a series of alphas before we do the official switch over. I think it's working nicely now but still needs a lot of work but I want to start getting feedback. Is there a staged release we can take a look at? As the first alpha I don't really care. I just changed a bunch of things and I will continue to change it. If you don't trust the release plugin then I will stage one but it what is in trunk. If for alphas people want it to be staged I can do that, but I'm going to pop them out one after another until the issues all get cleared up. -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
On 9/29/07, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As the first alpha I don't really care. I just changed a bunch of things and I will continue to change it. If you don't trust the release plugin then I will stage one but it what is in trunk. If for alphas people want it to be staged I can do that, but I'm going to pop them out one after another until the issues all get cleared up. It has nothing to do with whether I trust the release plugin. We need to be voting on the actual bits to be released, not on the general state of the code in svn. -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release ArchetypeNG 2.0-alpha-1
On 29 Sep 07, at 1:30 PM 29 Sep 07, Wendy Smoak wrote: On 9/29/07, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As the first alpha I don't really care. I just changed a bunch of things and I will continue to change it. If you don't trust the release plugin then I will stage one but it what is in trunk. If for alphas people want it to be staged I can do that, but I'm going to pop them out one after another until the issues all get cleared up. It has nothing to do with whether I trust the release plugin. We need to be voting on the actual bits to be released, not on the general state of the code in svn. Why, and says who? These things are not cast in stone and we have the ability to adapt the process to make it more productive. I will publish it, no one will actually try it and the problems will just be found when it's released in the wild. The bits are put there and historically the only person who has found anything is the Kulper but that wasn't from actually trying the plugin it was looking at the contents. If the release plugin produces something legally intact and it's an alpha it's probably better to look at the code don't you think? I don't really care. Staging a release is not a big deal, just invariably pointless for an alpha because 99% of the time no one will actually do anything with the staged copy. It's more important that the stuff gets cranked out for feedback so it can be fixed. I mean even with releases hardly anyone looks. It's nice idea in theory but if it serves no practical purpose what is the point. I was hopeful that the staged copy would illicit feedback but doesn't seem to have. Not much anyway. I only say this because I see very little, if any feed back on release plugins, and even released versions of Maven. The best feedback I get is from plugins that I just crank out from Mojo and I get two or three people providing feedback and that really helps. I mean even staging it sometimes doesn't help if you look at the last release of Archetype. Releases must be scrutinized (even though they aren't) but let the alphas sail out fast and furious for feedback. We don't intermediary releases out fast enough because it still must be a pain in the ass for people which means only the determined will build from source which means we miss out on the vast majority of potential feedback. People should lock down there plugin versions (the enforcer plugin on the next release will help with that, and they should turn off any automagic update policy) so that we can release this stuff often and people can try it as they like. We either adapt or people will continue annoy our users. People don't release often because something is wrong in our process. It is still deemed cumbersome because we still have the same pool of people doing releases and not many new people. Three +1 votes should really mean trying the software and actually reviewing code but we know that no one does that so what is difference really between pointing at a revision or trunk or putting some binaries somewhere? -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
