Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
Jeremy, I started another DISCUSS thread to "keep talking", you still need to let everyone know what you think of this VOTE. thanks, dims On 3/29/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > Here is a problem that most of us are facing with the Trunk and is > hindering > us to effectively contribute to the trunk. I see there is one > solution that > has been proposed to making this simpler with some compromises. If > this is > not agreeable what is the alternative for those of us who are > waiting for a > solution to this. Whats the simple way for any of us - including > somebody > getting in afresh - to quickly jump in and start contributing > without having > to worry about the build intricacies. Should we consider Bert's > suggestion? At the moment, this is a straight up/down binary vote on a fairly vague proposal, one that some people have specific technical concerns over. There are other proposals out there but we seem to have lost sight of that. IMO, yes, we should consider Bert's proposal, and mine for assemblies, and anything else anyone can think of that is less divisive. > Theres been may a time when you have helped us out of various > technical > difficulties. Here is yet another time I request for help from you > for a > way out of this. Thanks. My suggestion is, keep talking. The important thing here is about seeing if we can work together to reach consensus. What the technical outcome is really doesn't matter. -- Jeremy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
Jim, I started another DISCUSS thread to "look at these", you still need to let everyone know what you think of this VOTE. thanks, dims On 3/29/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 29, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: > On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> Here is a problem that most of us are facing with the Trunk and is >> hindering >> us to effectively contribute to the trunk. I see there is one >> solution that >> has been proposed to making this simpler with some compromises. >> If this is >> not agreeable what is the alternative for those of us who are >> waiting for a >> solution to this. Whats the simple way for any of us - including >> somebody >> getting in afresh - to quickly jump in and start contributing >> without having >> to worry about the build intricacies. Should we consider Bert's >> suggestion? > > At the moment, this is a straight up/down binary vote on a fairly > vague proposal, one that some people have specific technical > concerns over. There are other proposals out there but we seem to > have lost sight of that. IMO, yes, we should consider Bert's > proposal, and mine for assemblies, and anything else anyone can > think of that is less divisive. > I'd prefer we look at these as well. Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
On Mar 29, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote: Hi Jeremy, Here is a problem that most of us are facing with the Trunk and is hindering us to effectively contribute to the trunk. I see there is one solution that has been proposed to making this simpler with some compromises. If this is not agreeable what is the alternative for those of us who are waiting for a solution to this. Whats the simple way for any of us - including somebody getting in afresh - to quickly jump in and start contributing without having to worry about the build intricacies. Should we consider Bert's suggestion? At the moment, this is a straight up/down binary vote on a fairly vague proposal, one that some people have specific technical concerns over. There are other proposals out there but we seem to have lost sight of that. IMO, yes, we should consider Bert's proposal, and mine for assemblies, and anything else anyone can think of that is less divisive. I'd prefer we look at these as well. Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote: Hi Jeremy, Here is a problem that most of us are facing with the Trunk and is hindering us to effectively contribute to the trunk. I see there is one solution that has been proposed to making this simpler with some compromises. If this is not agreeable what is the alternative for those of us who are waiting for a solution to this. Whats the simple way for any of us - including somebody getting in afresh - to quickly jump in and start contributing without having to worry about the build intricacies. Should we consider Bert's suggestion? At the moment, this is a straight up/down binary vote on a fairly vague proposal, one that some people have specific technical concerns over. There are other proposals out there but we seem to have lost sight of that. IMO, yes, we should consider Bert's proposal, and mine for assemblies, and anything else anyone can think of that is less divisive. Theres been may a time when you have helped us out of various technical difficulties. Here is yet another time I request for help from you for a way out of this. Thanks. My suggestion is, keep talking. The important thing here is about seeing if we can work together to reach consensus. What the technical outcome is really doesn't matter. -- Jeremy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
On 3/29/07, Ignacio Silva-Lepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If I understand your clarification correctly, this vote is about putting out a single release with a certain number of modules in it, and with each module having the same version number. In particular, this vote does not set a cast-in-stone precedent about how future releases will be put together. Also, it is assumed that consensus will eventually be able to be reached about what the modules in the release will be (without this assumption, this vote seems pointless to me). While it is not clear to me that this is the best approach to follow from an open source project point of view, with the constraints and assump- tions above it seems to me to be reasonably safe to vote +1. So, if the constraints and assumptions above are true, then here's my +1. Thanks On 3/29/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I wasn't clear enough when starting this vote, let me try to fix that: > > I intended this vote to *be* the short term reality, I.e. about getting a > release out from trunk with everyone contributing. > > It may well be right that a single module version doesn't scale, in the > longer term maybe we need to adopt one the many proposals that has been > made > on this subject. We can revisit all this once we've managed to get the > next > release out. > > The specifics of what extensions are included in this release is left out > of > this vote and can be decided in the release plan discussion. All this vote > is saying is that all the modules that are to be included in this next > release will have the same version and that a top level pom.xml will exist > to enable building all those modules at once. We don't have so many > extensions planed for the next release so i think this will scale ok for > now. > > Does that help at all? Would anyone more vote for this now? > > If there isn't a reasonably large majority one way or the other I'm fine > with forgetting this vote and going back to the drawing board for a > different approach. I'd really prefer not to have to do that though as we > need to start finding some ways to make progress, so lets keep this going > till tomorrow to see how the votes look then. > > ...ant > > On 3/28/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, Bert. > > > > I think I'm with you on the proposal. The rule of the game should be > very > > simple as follows: > > > > Let's agree on a set of modules that are supposed to work together for > the > > next target (a release or a demo), then define an assembly and pom.xmlto > > enforce the cohesions. > > > > Thanks, > > Raymond > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Bert Lamb" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:28 PM > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and > enable > > building all modules together > > > > > > > Would something like what I outlined in this email[1] be more amenable > > > to people voting against this proposal? > > > > > > -Bert > > > > > > [1] > http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16062.html > > > > > > On 3/28/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I have expressed my views on all modules sharing the same version and > a > > >> top > > >> down build in quite a bit of detail in my previous emails on the same > > >> subject. Unfortunately, I will have to vote -1 on this. > > >> > > >> Meeraj > > >> > > >> > > >> >From: Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> >Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > > >> >To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > > >> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and > > >> >enable > > >> >building all modules together > > >> >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:19:53 -0700 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: > > >> > > > >> >>Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this > > >> >>issue. > > >> >> > > >> >>The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that > > >> >>enables > > >> >>building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, > > >> >>extensions > > >> >>etc, and for that to work all those modules need
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
If I understand your clarification correctly, this vote is about putting out a single release with a certain number of modules in it, and with each module having the same version number. In particular, this vote does not set a cast-in-stone precedent about how future releases will be put together. Also, it is assumed that consensus will eventually be able to be reached about what the modules in the release will be (without this assumption, this vote seems pointless to me). While it is not clear to me that this is the best approach to follow from an open source project point of view, with the constraints and assump- tions above it seems to me to be reasonably safe to vote +1. So, if the constraints and assumptions above are true, then here's my +1. Thanks On 3/29/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wasn't clear enough when starting this vote, let me try to fix that: I intended this vote to *be* the short term reality, I.e. about getting a release out from trunk with everyone contributing. It may well be right that a single module version doesn't scale, in the longer term maybe we need to adopt one the many proposals that has been made on this subject. We can revisit all this once we've managed to get the next release out. The specifics of what extensions are included in this release is left out of this vote and can be decided in the release plan discussion. All this vote is saying is that all the modules that are to be included in this next release will have the same version and that a top level pom.xml will exist to enable building all those modules at once. We don't have so many extensions planed for the next release so i think this will scale ok for now. Does that help at all? Would anyone more vote for this now? If there isn't a reasonably large majority one way or the other I'm fine with forgetting this vote and going back to the drawing board for a different approach. I'd really prefer not to have to do that though as we need to start finding some ways to make progress, so lets keep this going till tomorrow to see how the votes look then. ...ant On 3/28/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, Bert. > > I think I'm with you on the proposal. The rule of the game should be very > simple as follows: > > Let's agree on a set of modules that are supposed to work together for the > next target (a release or a demo), then define an assembly and pom.xmlto > enforce the cohesions. > > Thanks, > Raymond > > - Original Message - > From: "Bert Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:28 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable > building all modules together > > > > Would something like what I outlined in this email[1] be more amenable > > to people voting against this proposal? > > > > -Bert > > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16062.html > > > > On 3/28/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I have expressed my views on all modules sharing the same version and a > >> top > >> down build in quite a bit of detail in my previous emails on the same > >> subject. Unfortunately, I will have to vote -1 on this. > >> > >> Meeraj > >> > >> > >> >From: Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > >> >To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > >> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and > >> >enable > >> >building all modules together > >> >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:19:53 -0700 > >> > > >> > > >> >On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: > >> > > >> >>Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this > >> >>issue. > >> >> > >> >>The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that > >> >>enables > >> >>building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, > >> >>extensions > >> >>etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same > >> >>version > >> >>name. > >> >> > >> >>Here's my +1. > >> >> > >> >> ...ant > >> >> > >> >>[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ > >> >>msg16024.html > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue &g
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
This vote makes much more sense to me know and sounds a bit like what I was trying to propose, so I'm all for it and it gets my non-binding vote :) +1 (non-binding) -Bert On 3/29/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wasn't clear enough when starting this vote, let me try to fix that: I intended this vote to *be* the short term reality, I.e. about getting a release out from trunk with everyone contributing. It may well be right that a single module version doesn't scale, in the longer term maybe we need to adopt one the many proposals that has been made on this subject. We can revisit all this once we've managed to get the next release out. The specifics of what extensions are included in this release is left out of this vote and can be decided in the release plan discussion. All this vote is saying is that all the modules that are to be included in this next release will have the same version and that a top level pom.xml will exist to enable building all those modules at once. We don't have so many extensions planed for the next release so i think this will scale ok for now. Does that help at all? Would anyone more vote for this now? If there isn't a reasonably large majority one way or the other I'm fine with forgetting this vote and going back to the drawing board for a different approach. I'd really prefer not to have to do that though as we need to start finding some ways to make progress, so lets keep this going till tomorrow to see how the votes look then. ...ant On 3/28/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, Bert. > > I think I'm with you on the proposal. The rule of the game should be very > simple as follows: > > Let's agree on a set of modules that are supposed to work together for the > next target (a release or a demo), then define an assembly and pom.xml to > enforce the cohesions. > > Thanks, > Raymond > > - Original Message - > From: "Bert Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:28 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable > building all modules together > > > > Would something like what I outlined in this email[1] be more amenable > > to people voting against this proposal? > > > > -Bert > > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16062.html > > > > On 3/28/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I have expressed my views on all modules sharing the same version and a > >> top > >> down build in quite a bit of detail in my previous emails on the same > >> subject. Unfortunately, I will have to vote -1 on this. > >> > >> Meeraj > >> > >> > >> >From: Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > >> >To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > >> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and > >> >enable > >> >building all modules together > >> >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:19:53 -0700 > >> > > >> > > >> >On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: > >> > > >> >>Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this > >> >>issue. > >> >> > >> >>The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that > >> >>enables > >> >>building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, > >> >>extensions > >> >>etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same > >> >>version > >> >>name. > >> >> > >> >>Here's my +1. > >> >> > >> >> ...ant > >> >> > >> >>[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ > >> >>msg16024.html > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue > about building > >> >extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules on > >> >different > >> >release schedules requiring different levels of kernel or plugins > will > >> >be > >> >handled. > >> > > >> >Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I > have to > >> >vote against the proposal. > >> > > >> >-1 > >> > > >> >Jim > >> > > >> >- > >> >To unsubscribe,
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
I wasn't clear enough when starting this vote, let me try to fix that: I intended this vote to *be* the short term reality, I.e. about getting a release out from trunk with everyone contributing. It may well be right that a single module version doesn't scale, in the longer term maybe we need to adopt one the many proposals that has been made on this subject. We can revisit all this once we've managed to get the next release out. The specifics of what extensions are included in this release is left out of this vote and can be decided in the release plan discussion. All this vote is saying is that all the modules that are to be included in this next release will have the same version and that a top level pom.xml will exist to enable building all those modules at once. We don't have so many extensions planed for the next release so i think this will scale ok for now. Does that help at all? Would anyone more vote for this now? If there isn't a reasonably large majority one way or the other I'm fine with forgetting this vote and going back to the drawing board for a different approach. I'd really prefer not to have to do that though as we need to start finding some ways to make progress, so lets keep this going till tomorrow to see how the votes look then. ...ant On 3/28/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, Bert. I think I'm with you on the proposal. The rule of the game should be very simple as follows: Let's agree on a set of modules that are supposed to work together for the next target (a release or a demo), then define an assembly and pom.xml to enforce the cohesions. Thanks, Raymond - Original Message - From: "Bert Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together > Would something like what I outlined in this email[1] be more amenable > to people voting against this proposal? > > -Bert > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16062.html > > On 3/28/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I have expressed my views on all modules sharing the same version and a >> top >> down build in quite a bit of detail in my previous emails on the same >> subject. Unfortunately, I will have to vote -1 on this. >> >> Meeraj >> >> >> >From: Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org >> >To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org >> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and >> >enable >> >building all modules together >> >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:19:53 -0700 >> > >> > >> >On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: >> > >> >>Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this >> >>issue. >> >> >> >>The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that >> >>enables >> >>building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, >> >>extensions >> >>etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same >> >>version >> >>name. >> >> >> >>Here's my +1. >> >> >> >> ...ant >> >> >> >>[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ >> >>msg16024.html >> > >> > >> > >> >There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue about building >> >extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules on >> >different >> >release schedules requiring different levels of kernel or plugins will >> >be >> >handled. >> > >> >Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I have to >> >vote against the proposal. >> > >> >-1 >> > >> >Jim >> > >> >- >> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> >> _ >> Match.com - Click Here To Find Singles In Your Area Today! >> http://msnuk.match.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] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
Hi Jeremy, Here is a problem that most of us are facing with the Trunk and is hindering us to effectively contribute to the trunk. I see there is one solution that has been proposed to making this simpler with some compromises. If this is not agreeable what is the alternative for those of us who are waiting for a solution to this. Whats the simple way for any of us - including somebody getting in afresh - to quickly jump in and start contributing without having to worry about the build intricacies. Should we consider Bert's suggestion? Theres been may a time when you have helped us out of various technical difficulties. Here is yet another time I request for help from you for a way out of this. Thanks - Venkat On 3/29/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dims, Sorry, I can't speak on behalf of Jim or Jeremy. As for me, this is only the second time I have voted -1, the other one being the one on interfaced based models, which has been withdrawn since then. On this particular vote, I am ok to go with -0, it was a misunderstaning on my part on how voting worked. I thought, the rule was there should be more +1s than -1s and at least three +1s. As Jim mentioned in one of the previous emails, there is a fundamental difference that has been evolving between two groups of people, in terms of what technical direction we should take. There have been laudable efforts from both sides (especially from the likes of Raymond, Sebastien, Simon, Jim and Jeremy) to reconcile the differences and move on. However, the plain fact is that those diffeerences have not been resolved yet and I am not sure whether they would, given they are quite fundamental. On your point on projects being thrown out of the incubator, I wouldn't want that to happen to Tuscany. Lot of people have put in a lot of effort on this. I am willing to keep the discussions going. At the end of the day, if I personally can't resolve the technical differences, I would maintain my dignity and step out of the way and let the community carry on. However, that would be a last resort for me, I would continue to work with the guys here and try to reconcile the differences. On your point on the "Be Nice" vote, I have been thinking hard on the actual motivation of that vote. I don't think anyone has been disrespectful to anyone on the list so far. We have had our differences, and we have tried to discuss them as grown up individuals. Hence, I didn't really understand the purpose of that vote. Ta Meeraj From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 5:09 AM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together Meeraj, well go over the archives and count how many times you, jim and jeremy have -1'ed something. The correct vote for "I am happy to go with the majority view, if that is what the community wants." is -0 *NOT* -1. When you do a -1 you are supposed to work hard to come up with a refined proposal that takes in your viewpoint or help come up with a proposal that evertone can rally around. I see no effort in consensus building in any of the threads i reviewed after a -1. This is an open source project, you can have the best goddamn architecture in the whole wide world. If there is no community to back the work. It will get thrown out of the incubator. Sorry, that's the way Apache works. Incubator is not only for legal purposes but also to help build communities. This is not the way an open source project should work. Forget about incubator projects, we have closed Top level project (example Avalon) too because everyone was at cross purposes and no one was cooperating with any one else. Yes, a few of the people who started the fracas did say exactly what you said.."I disagree fundamnetally from a technical perspective". See this email and check if it is the same situation you all are in. Finally did the three of you VOTE in the "Be Nice" thread? That just tells me a lot of things. thanks, dims [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/avalon-dev/200211.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/28/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dims, > > I don't think there is a stream of -1s. This is an issue on which, unfortunately, I disagree fundamnetally from a technical perspective, with the percieved majority view. It will be hypocritical of me to +1, if I don't agree with it. > > However, I am happy to go with the majority view, if that is what the community wants. > > Ta > Meeraj > > > > From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wed 3/28/2007 11:24 PM > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together >
RE: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
Dims, Sorry, I can't speak on behalf of Jim or Jeremy. As for me, this is only the second time I have voted -1, the other one being the one on interfaced based models, which has been withdrawn since then. On this particular vote, I am ok to go with -0, it was a misunderstaning on my part on how voting worked. I thought, the rule was there should be more +1s than -1s and at least three +1s. As Jim mentioned in one of the previous emails, there is a fundamental difference that has been evolving between two groups of people, in terms of what technical direction we should take. There have been laudable efforts from both sides (especially from the likes of Raymond, Sebastien, Simon, Jim and Jeremy) to reconcile the differences and move on. However, the plain fact is that those diffeerences have not been resolved yet and I am not sure whether they would, given they are quite fundamental. On your point on projects being thrown out of the incubator, I wouldn't want that to happen to Tuscany. Lot of people have put in a lot of effort on this. I am willing to keep the discussions going. At the end of the day, if I personally can't resolve the technical differences, I would maintain my dignity and step out of the way and let the community carry on. However, that would be a last resort for me, I would continue to work with the guys here and try to reconcile the differences. On your point on the "Be Nice" vote, I have been thinking hard on the actual motivation of that vote. I don't think anyone has been disrespectful to anyone on the list so far. We have had our differences, and we have tried to discuss them as grown up individuals. Hence, I didn't really understand the purpose of that vote. Ta Meeraj From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 5:09 AM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together Meeraj, well go over the archives and count how many times you, jim and jeremy have -1'ed something. The correct vote for "I am happy to go with the majority view, if that is what the community wants." is -0 *NOT* -1. When you do a -1 you are supposed to work hard to come up with a refined proposal that takes in your viewpoint or help come up with a proposal that evertone can rally around. I see no effort in consensus building in any of the threads i reviewed after a -1. This is an open source project, you can have the best goddamn architecture in the whole wide world. If there is no community to back the work. It will get thrown out of the incubator. Sorry, that's the way Apache works. Incubator is not only for legal purposes but also to help build communities. This is not the way an open source project should work. Forget about incubator projects, we have closed Top level project (example Avalon) too because everyone was at cross purposes and no one was cooperating with any one else. Yes, a few of the people who started the fracas did say exactly what you said.."I disagree fundamnetally from a technical perspective". See this email and check if it is the same situation you all are in. Finally did the three of you VOTE in the "Be Nice" thread? That just tells me a lot of things. thanks, dims [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/avalon-dev/200211.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/28/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dims, > > I don't think there is a stream of -1s. This is an issue on which, > unfortunately, I disagree fundamnetally from a technical perspective, with > the percieved majority view. It will be hypocritical of me to +1, if I don't > agree with it. > > However, I am happy to go with the majority view, if that is what the > community wants. > > Ta > Meeraj > > > > From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wed 3/28/2007 11:24 PM > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable > building all modules together > > > > Jim, Meeraj, > > If the stream of -1's contnue, am afraid there isn't going to be a > single release at all. > > thx, > dims > > On 3/28/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: > > > > > Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this > > > issue. > > > > > > The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that > > > enables > > > building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, > > > extensions > > > etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same > > &g
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
Meeraj, well go over the archives and count how many times you, jim and jeremy have -1'ed something. The correct vote for "I am happy to go with the majority view, if that is what the community wants." is -0 *NOT* -1. When you do a -1 you are supposed to work hard to come up with a refined proposal that takes in your viewpoint or help come up with a proposal that evertone can rally around. I see no effort in consensus building in any of the threads i reviewed after a -1. This is an open source project, you can have the best goddamn architecture in the whole wide world. If there is no community to back the work. It will get thrown out of the incubator. Sorry, that's the way Apache works. Incubator is not only for legal purposes but also to help build communities. This is not the way an open source project should work. Forget about incubator projects, we have closed Top level project (example Avalon) too because everyone was at cross purposes and no one was cooperating with any one else. Yes, a few of the people who started the fracas did say exactly what you said.."I disagree fundamnetally from a technical perspective". See this email and check if it is the same situation you all are in. Finally did the three of you VOTE in the "Be Nice" thread? That just tells me a lot of things. thanks, dims [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/avalon-dev/200211.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/28/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dims, I don't think there is a stream of -1s. This is an issue on which, unfortunately, I disagree fundamnetally from a technical perspective, with the percieved majority view. It will be hypocritical of me to +1, if I don't agree with it. However, I am happy to go with the majority view, if that is what the community wants. Ta Meeraj From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 3/28/2007 11:24 PM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together Jim, Meeraj, If the stream of -1's contnue, am afraid there isn't going to be a single release at all. thx, dims On 3/28/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: > > > Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this > > issue. > > > > The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that > > enables > > building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, > > extensions > > etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same > > version > > name. > > > > Here's my +1. > > > > ...ant > > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ > > msg16024.html > > > > There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue about > building extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules > on different release schedules requiring different levels of kernel > or plugins will be handled. > > Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I have > to vote against the proposal. > > -1 > > Jim > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message has been checked for all email viruses by MessageLabs. * You can find us at www.voca.com * This communication is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee only. You should not disclose its contents to any other person. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender named above immediately. Registered in England, No 1023742, Registered Office: Voca Limited Drake House, Three Rivers Court, Homestead Road, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 1FX. United Kingdom VAT No. 226 6112 87 This message has been checked for all email viruses by MessageLabs. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
Dims, I don't think there is a stream of -1s. This is an issue on which, unfortunately, I disagree fundamnetally from a technical perspective, with the percieved majority view. It will be hypocritical of me to +1, if I don't agree with it. However, I am happy to go with the majority view, if that is what the community wants. Ta Meeraj From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 3/28/2007 11:24 PM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together Jim, Meeraj, If the stream of -1's contnue, am afraid there isn't going to be a single release at all. thx, dims On 3/28/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: > > > Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this > > issue. > > > > The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that > > enables > > building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, > > extensions > > etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same > > version > > name. > > > > Here's my +1. > > > > ...ant > > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ > > msg16024.html > > > > There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue about > building extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules > on different release schedules requiring different levels of kernel > or plugins will be handled. > > Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I have > to vote against the proposal. > > -1 > > Jim > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message has been checked for all email viruses by MessageLabs. * You can find us at www.voca.com * This communication is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee only. You should not disclose its contents to any other person. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender named above immediately. Registered in England, No 1023742, Registered Office: Voca Limited Drake House, Three Rivers Court, Homestead Road, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 1FX. United Kingdom VAT No. 226 6112 87 This message has been checked for all email viruses by MessageLabs. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
I don't believe this vote was initiated prematurely. This has been debated for a long time, we've never really got complete agreement, but we've also never voted on it. This vote started directly from a thread that started on 22nd, (though that was spawned from an earlier thread), when discussion died down on the 26th I suggested calling this vote and clearly stated what the vote would be and that I'd wait to see if there was more discussion, I waited 2 days but there was no further discussion. What else can we do now other than have a vote? To answer the specific question in this vote thread about "building extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules on different release schedules requiring different levels of kernel or plugins will be handled." - we do nothing. As discussed on the thread that started this vote for the next release at least there would only be a single version and all modules would be released together. Thats what this vote is voting for. We can revisit this again after we've got a release out. As I understand it this is a simple majority vote, to pass it needs at least 3 +1s and more +1s than -1s. It still has time left to run, please could people continue voting. ...ant On 3/29/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is an indication that the vote was initiated prematurely, before agreement was reached. I would suggest withdrawing it until individuals' concerns have been addressed unless we think this issue is irreconcilable and that a decision should be forced. -- Jeremy On Mar 28, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Jim, Meeraj, > > If the stream of -1's contnue, am afraid there isn't going to be a > single release at all. > > thx, > dims > > On 3/28/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: >> >> > Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this >> > issue. >> > >> > The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that >> > enables >> > building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, >> > extensions >> > etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same >> > version >> > name. >> > >> > Here's my +1. >> > >> > ...ant >> > >> > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ >> > msg16024.html >> >> >> >> There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue about >> building extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules >> on different release schedules requiring different levels of kernel >> or plugins will be handled. >> >> Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I have >> to vote against the proposal. >> >> -1 >> >> Jim >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services > Developers > > - > 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] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
This is an indication that the vote was initiated prematurely, before agreement was reached. I would suggest withdrawing it until individuals' concerns have been addressed unless we think this issue is irreconcilable and that a decision should be forced. -- Jeremy On Mar 28, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Jim, Meeraj, If the stream of -1's contnue, am afraid there isn't going to be a single release at all. thx, dims On 3/28/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: > Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this > issue. > > The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that > enables > building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, > extensions > etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same > version > name. > > Here's my +1. > > ...ant > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ > msg16024.html There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue about building extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules on different release schedules requiring different levels of kernel or plugins will be handled. Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I have to vote against the proposal. -1 Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers - 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] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
Jim, Meeraj, If the stream of -1's contnue, am afraid there isn't going to be a single release at all. thx, dims On 3/28/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: > Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this > issue. > > The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that > enables > building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, > extensions > etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same > version > name. > > Here's my +1. > > ...ant > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ > msg16024.html There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue about building extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules on different release schedules requiring different levels of kernel or plugins will be handled. Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I have to vote against the proposal. -1 Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
Hi, Bert. I think I'm with you on the proposal. The rule of the game should be very simple as follows: Let's agree on a set of modules that are supposed to work together for the next target (a release or a demo), then define an assembly and pom.xml to enforce the cohesions. Thanks, Raymond - Original Message - From: "Bert Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together Would something like what I outlined in this email[1] be more amenable to people voting against this proposal? -Bert [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16062.html On 3/28/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have expressed my views on all modules sharing the same version and a top down build in quite a bit of detail in my previous emails on the same subject. Unfortunately, I will have to vote -1 on this. Meeraj >From: Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org >To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and >enable >building all modules together >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:19:53 -0700 > > >On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: > >>Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this >>issue. >> >>The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that >>enables >>building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, >>extensions >>etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same >>version >>name. >> >>Here's my +1. >> >> ...ant >> >>[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ >>msg16024.html > > > >There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue about building >extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules on >different >release schedules requiring different levels of kernel or plugins will >be >handled. > >Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I have to >vote against the proposal. > >-1 > >Jim > >- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ Match.com - Click Here To Find Singles In Your Area Today! http://msnuk.match.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] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
Hi, I think there're confusions on a few related topics which have been tangled against each other. Let me try to clarify before we agree or disagree. Please be patient when you read through this lengthy e-mail :-). Issue 1: Maintain dependencies --- We use maven to track dependencies and there are a few types: a) Depend on a module from Tuscany * Released (such as sca-api-r1.0) * SNAPSHOT * Latest revision (for example, core depends on spi) * A particular revision (in very rare cases such as a demo for a conference) b) Depend on an external artifact (for example, axis2 or wookstox) * Released * SNAPSHOT (We should try to avoid it unless absolutely necessary) So the principle is: The less SNAPSHOT dependency, the better. Issue 2: Build related source modules together to prevent changes in one module from breaking others The scope of "related" varies on what we want to achieve. But we have two techniques to build related stuff together on the table: [Option A]: Use profiles in the root pom.xml to enable top-down builds for different purposes. Pros: Simple to use Cons: I think maven has a limitation (or feature) that prevents the mixed versions of artifacts. For example, if the "spi" is at version 1.0.0, and "binding.axis2" depends on "spi-1.0.0", then the top-down build will mess up. The other thing is that the pom.xml will become messy if we have many profiles. [Option B]: Create pom.xml corresponding to an assembly which is defined to be a collection modules that work together for an objective, such as a demo or the next release. (I remember that Luciano actually prototyped one @ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/sandbox/lresende/sca/distribution/tss-sample/). Pros: Flexible to reference source modules from different locations (even different revisions). And the set of modules aligns with a defined objective. Cons: The pom.xml is maintained on the side and people tend to ignore it before commits. Based on the nature of the Tuscany module for a dependency, we have the following cases to consider we need to build a module from source: * Released version: No need to build the source module because the given version will be pulled from maven repo and it's not subject to changes. * SNAPSHOTs: To build from the latest source code, we should add a element to the pom.xml. (BTW, If Option B is adopted and if an assembly references a particular revision of the module, we can use the "svn:externals" property to link to the revision from SVN.) Both option A and B are just technical ways to avoid breaks across modules. And I believe it's much more important that we set the mentality in the community that we collaborate as we work on different pieces. Running a build to cover modules targeted for the same release before commits really demonstrates that we're dedicated to work together. Issue 3: Attach source code for debugging - For ease of developing and debugging, sometimes we prefer to load (or attach) related source modules in an IDE (I'll use Eclipse as an example). a) For external artifacts, if source codes are published in maven repo, then "mvn eclipse:eclipse -DdownloadSources" will create the source attachments automatically. Otherwise we have to associate the binary with source code (if available for download) manually. b) For Tuscany artifacts, source modules in the build tree will be referenced as projects in IDE. If a binary artifact is referenced, please follow the practice in a). Thanks, Raymond - Original Message - From: "Jim Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this issue. The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that enables building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, extensions etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same version name. Here's my +1. ...ant [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ msg16024.html There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue about building extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules on different release schedules requiring different levels of kernel or plugins will be handled. Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I have to vote against the proposal. -1 Jim --
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
Would something like what I outlined in this email[1] be more amenable to people voting against this proposal? -Bert [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16062.html On 3/28/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have expressed my views on all modules sharing the same version and a top down build in quite a bit of detail in my previous emails on the same subject. Unfortunately, I will have to vote -1 on this. Meeraj >From: Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org >To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable >building all modules together >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:19:53 -0700 > > >On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: > >>Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this >>issue. >> >>The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that >>enables >>building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, >>extensions >>etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same version >>name. >> >>Here's my +1. >> >> ...ant >> >>[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ msg16024.html > > > >There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue about building >extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules on different >release schedules requiring different levels of kernel or plugins will be >handled. > >Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I have to >vote against the proposal. > >-1 > >Jim > >- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ Match.com - Click Here To Find Singles In Your Area Today! http://msnuk.match.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] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
I have expressed my views on all modules sharing the same version and a top down build in quite a bit of detail in my previous emails on the same subject. Unfortunately, I will have to vote -1 on this. Meeraj From: Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:19:53 -0700 On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this issue. The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that enables building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, extensions etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same version name. Here's my +1. ...ant [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ msg16024.html There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue about building extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules on different release schedules requiring different levels of kernel or plugins will be handled. Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I have to vote against the proposal. -1 Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Match.com - Click Here To Find Singles In Your Area Today! http://msnuk.match.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this issue. The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that enables building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, extensions etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same version name. Here's my +1. ...ant [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ msg16024.html There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue about building extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules on different release schedules requiring different levels of kernel or plugins will be handled. Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I have to vote against the proposal. -1 Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
+1 from me. It is a simple approach which will make it easier for people to build our runtime and see the various pieces fit together, and I think it's going to help our community work together on a common level of our codebase. Luciano Resende wrote: I think I have already gave enough of my reasons to why this is needed, so here is my +1 . On 3/28/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1. Atleast in the spirit of getting this going for now to enable people to get on with the r Trunk rightaway as one piece than having to first deal with its composition. Thanks. - Venkat On 3/28/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this issue. > > The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that > enables > building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, extensions > etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same version > name. > > Here's my +1. > >...ant > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16024.html > -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
I think I have already gave enough of my reasons to why this is needed, so here is my +1 . On 3/28/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1. Atleast in the spirit of getting this going for now to enable people to get on with the r Trunk rightaway as one piece than having to first deal with its composition. Thanks. - Venkat On 3/28/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this issue. > > The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that > enables > building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, extensions > etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same version > name. > > Here's my +1. > >...ant > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16024.html > -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende
Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
+1. Atleast in the spirit of getting this going for now to enable people to get on with the r Trunk rightaway as one piece than having to first deal with its composition. Thanks. - Venkat On 3/28/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this issue. The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that enables building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, extensions etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same version name. Here's my +1. ...ant [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16024.html
[VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together
Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this issue. The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that enables building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, extensions etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same version name. Here's my +1. ...ant [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16024.html
