Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Ok, I've started to use 0.90 for the name for now. Can easily change it if something better comes up. ...ant On 5/3/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 for 0.90 - Venkat On 5/2/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all the > readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on beta1 > so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still > gives space for more releases before the final 1.0. > >...ant > > On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting > > mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in > > that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all > > would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can, > > but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne. > > What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable > > code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken, > > than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3, > > with a name of M3 or maybe alpha. > > > > -Bert > > > > On 4/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put > > > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it > > > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" > level > > > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. > > > > > > > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions > as > > to > > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should > > we: > > > > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe > > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time > > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a > non-"beta" > > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? > > > > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like > > to > > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. > > > > > >...ant > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
+1 for 0.90 - Venkat On 5/2/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all the readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on beta1 so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still gives space for more releases before the final 1.0. ...ant On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting > mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in > that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all > would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can, > but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne. > What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable > code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken, > than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3, > with a name of M3 or maybe alpha. > > -Bert > > On 4/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put > > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it > > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level > > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. > > > > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions as > to > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should > we: > > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta" > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? > > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like > to > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. > > > >...ant > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
On 5/2/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I thought Ant's suggestion was just 0.90 and not beta anything. I can live with this. I don't think we are ready yet to call it beta 1.0 or beta1 1.0. Simon haleh mahbod wrote: > why does it matter if we call it beta1 or beta .90? It is a variation of > what we call beta. The fact that there is a number after Beta is an > indication that there might be revisions of Beta anyway before 1.0release > is reached. > > > On 5/2/07, Ignacio Silva-Lepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> +1 on 0.90 >> >> On 5/2/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all >> the >> > readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on >> beta1 >> > so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still >> > gives space for more releases before the final 1.0. >> > >> > ...ant >> > >> > On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > > I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting >> > > mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in >> > > that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all >> > > would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we >> can, >> > > but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne. >> > > What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable >> > > code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken, >> > > than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3, >> > > with a name of M3 or maybe alpha. >> > > >> > > -Bert >> > > >> > > On 4/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put >> > > > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to >> call it >> > > > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" >> > level >> > > > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different >> perceptions >> > as >> > > to >> > > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? >> Should >> > > we: >> > > > >> > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe >> > > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time >> > > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a >> > non-"beta" >> > > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? >> > > > >> > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd >> like >> > > to >> > > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. >> > > > >> > > >...ant >> > > > >> > > >> > > - >> > > 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] +1 to using 0.90 (over reverting to M3 say). After this is done we should take the time discuss here what everyone thinks the gap is between what we have and what a beta would contain. Simon
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
I thought Ant's suggestion was just 0.90 and not beta anything. I can live with this. I don't think we are ready yet to call it beta 1.0 or beta1 1.0. Simon haleh mahbod wrote: why does it matter if we call it beta1 or beta .90? It is a variation of what we call beta. The fact that there is a number after Beta is an indication that there might be revisions of Beta anyway before 1.0 release is reached. On 5/2/07, Ignacio Silva-Lepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 on 0.90 On 5/2/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all the > readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on beta1 > so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still > gives space for more releases before the final 1.0. > > ...ant > > On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting > > mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in > > that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all > > would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can, > > but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne. > > What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable > > code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken, > > than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3, > > with a name of M3 or maybe alpha. > > > > -Bert > > > > On 4/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put > > > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it > > > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" > level > > > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. > > > > > > > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions > as > > to > > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should > > we: > > > > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe > > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time > > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a > non-"beta" > > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? > > > > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like > > to > > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. > > > > > >...ant > > > > > > > - > > 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: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
why does it matter if we call it beta1 or beta .90? It is a variation of what we call beta. The fact that there is a number after Beta is an indication that there might be revisions of Beta anyway before 1.0 release is reached. On 5/2/07, Ignacio Silva-Lepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 on 0.90 On 5/2/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all the > readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on beta1 > so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still > gives space for more releases before the final 1.0. > > ...ant > > On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting > > mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in > > that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all > > would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can, > > but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne. > > What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable > > code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken, > > than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3, > > with a name of M3 or maybe alpha. > > > > -Bert > > > > On 4/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put > > > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it > > > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" > level > > > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. > > > > > > > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions > as > > to > > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should > > we: > > > > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe > > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time > > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a > non-"beta" > > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? > > > > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like > > to > > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. > > > > > >...ant > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
+1 on 0.90 On 5/2/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all the readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on beta1 so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still gives space for more releases before the final 1.0. ...ant On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting > mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in > that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all > would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can, > but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne. > What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable > code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken, > than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3, > with a name of M3 or maybe alpha. > > -Bert > > On 4/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put > > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it > > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level > > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. > > > > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions as > to > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should > we: > > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta" > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? > > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like > to > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. > > > >...ant > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all the readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on beta1 so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still gives space for more releases before the final 1.0. ...ant On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can, but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne. What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken, than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3, with a name of M3 or maybe alpha. -Bert On 4/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put > > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it > > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level > > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions as to > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should we: > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta" > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like to > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. > >...ant > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can, but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne. What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken, than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3, with a name of M3 or maybe alpha. -Bert On 4/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put > something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it > "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level > of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions as to what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should we: 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta" release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like to get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
On 4/25/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ant elder wrote: > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put >> something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it >> "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level >> of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions > as to > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should we: > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta" > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like to > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. > > ...ant > I think it would be good to "Release early, release often" :) and have a release around JavaOne for people to try our SCA 1.0 APIs and assembly support as well as our new SPIs, and after that have more frequent releases than we did in in the past, like a release every two months maybe, with smaller increments each time. I'm for a variation of your option (3)... refine the contents of the release first, then decide to call it alpha/beta/gamma/whatever based on what we've been able to put in that release. Ok, is there anything on the list in the wiki [1] that we think either (a) must be in the next release or (b) need not be in the next release? The main things I think are in the (a) "must have" category is "define a clear set of runtime and extension APIs", and unless we're happy with just a source distribution also "decide on distributions, create build scripts". If all we want to do is get a release out quickly then maybe everything else could be slipped to the release after next. One problem is i don't think we can define a clear and stable extension API without having a few extensions working using it so we probably also need to get a few implementation and binding types working using the extension API (eg java, script, axis2 and rmi?). I guess we don't actually have to release those extensions in the next release though. ...ant [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Both of these seem like useful suggestions. There's a scheduled IRC next Monday so lets discuss the release contents at that, in the meantime people could add their names to wiki items [1] for things that they want to get into the next release. ...ant [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents On 4/25/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A working release that is closer to 1.0 spec version sooner would be better than having more content and a later release. M2 is old now and has issues. Should IRC be used for a discussion on release or maybe we should update the Wiki page with (IN/Out) comment to help you? If an item has both IN and OUT, discussion can resolve it. Would it help if we put our name next to the idea that each of us are driving? I sign up for wiki and driving the documentation layout and some of the content like user guide. On 4/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/25/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ant elder wrote: > > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put > > >> something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it > > >> "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level > > >> of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. > > > > > > > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions > > > as to > > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should > > we: > > > > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe > > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time > > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a > non-"beta" > > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? > > > > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like > > to > > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. > > > > > > ...ant > > > > > > > I think it would be good to "Release early, release often" :) and have a > > release around JavaOne for people to try our SCA 1.0 APIs and assembly > > support as well as our new SPIs, and after that have more frequent > > releases than we did in in the past, like a release every two months > > maybe, with smaller increments each time. > > > > I'm for a variation of your option (3)... refine the contents of the > > release first, then decide to call it alpha/beta/gamma/whatever based on > > what we've been able to put in that release. > > > > Thoughts? > > > I've started a wiki page to track the next release contents: > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents > . > Very rough to start with - I've just tried to note all the things that > have > been suggested on the mailing list that we should put in the next release > (sorry if i've missed something, please just add it). > > JavaOne is just 8 working days away so to make a release by then, or even > just a release candidate, there is a lot to do if we want to finish > everything on that wiki page. What is the absolute minimum we should > include? What are must do's for you before I can tag or branch SVN for the > release? What on that list do you think we could leave out? > >...ant >
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
A working release that is closer to 1.0 spec version sooner would be better than having more content and a later release. M2 is old now and has issues. Should IRC be used for a discussion on release or maybe we should update the Wiki page with (IN/Out) comment to help you? If an item has both IN and OUT, discussion can resolve it. Would it help if we put our name next to the idea that each of us are driving? I sign up for wiki and driving the documentation layout and some of the content like user guide. On 4/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/25/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ant elder wrote: > > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put > >> something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it > >> "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level > >> of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. > > > > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions > > as to > > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should > we: > > > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe > > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time > > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta" > > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? > > > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like > to > > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. > > > > ...ant > > > > I think it would be good to "Release early, release often" :) and have a > release around JavaOne for people to try our SCA 1.0 APIs and assembly > support as well as our new SPIs, and after that have more frequent > releases than we did in in the past, like a release every two months > maybe, with smaller increments each time. > > I'm for a variation of your option (3)... refine the contents of the > release first, then decide to call it alpha/beta/gamma/whatever based on > what we've been able to put in that release. > > Thoughts? I've started a wiki page to track the next release contents: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents . Very rough to start with - I've just tried to note all the things that have been suggested on the mailing list that we should put in the next release (sorry if i've missed something, please just add it). JavaOne is just 8 working days away so to make a release by then, or even just a release candidate, there is a lot to do if we want to finish everything on that wiki page. What is the absolute minimum we should include? What are must do's for you before I can tag or branch SVN for the release? What on that list do you think we could leave out? ...ant
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
On 4/25/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ant elder wrote: > On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put >> something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it >> "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level >> of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. > > > I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions > as to > what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should we: > > 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe > 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time > 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta" > release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? > > I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like to > get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. > > ...ant > I think it would be good to "Release early, release often" :) and have a release around JavaOne for people to try our SCA 1.0 APIs and assembly support as well as our new SPIs, and after that have more frequent releases than we did in in the past, like a release every two months maybe, with smaller increments each time. I'm for a variation of your option (3)... refine the contents of the release first, then decide to call it alpha/beta/gamma/whatever based on what we've been able to put in that release. Thoughts? I've started a wiki page to track the next release contents: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents. Very rough to start with - I've just tried to note all the things that have been suggested on the mailing list that we should put in the next release (sorry if i've missed something, please just add it). JavaOne is just 8 working days away so to make a release by then, or even just a release candidate, there is a lot to do if we want to finish everything on that wiki page. What is the absolute minimum we should include? What are must do's for you before I can tag or branch SVN for the release? What on that list do you think we could leave out? ...ant
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
ant elder wrote: On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions as to what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should we: 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta" release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like to get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. ...ant I think it would be good to "Release early, release often" :) and have a release around JavaOne for people to try our SCA 1.0 APIs and assembly support as well as our new SPIs, and after that have more frequent releases than we did in in the past, like a release every two months maybe, with smaller increments each time. I'm for a variation of your option (3)... refine the contents of the release first, then decide to call it alpha/beta/gamma/whatever based on what we've been able to put in that release. Thoughts? -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Ant, thanks for the pointers here. I am persisting with this, but I thought I'd just post an update as this doesn't seem to be working as it should. I have two main problems, one is when attempting to deploy the SDO tools jar by command -- see [1], the maven command removes the pom i'm trying to deploy in mid flow. The other is deploying the standalone pom corresponding to the SDO reactor build. There is guidance at [2] but neither way described there seems to work, for the straight file deploy route i get [3] I'll keep plugging on, but if anyone has any insights they are very welcome Kelvin [1] C:\Documents and Settings\ibm_user\.m2\repository\org\apache\tuscany\sdo\tuscany-sdo-tools\1.0-incubating-beta1>ls tuscany-sdo-tools-1.0-incubating-beta1.jar tuscany-sdo-tools-1.0-incubating-beta1.pom C:\Documents and Settings\ibm_user\.m2\repository\org\apache\tuscany\sdo\tuscany-sdo-tools\1.0-incubating-beta1>mvn deploy:de ploy-file -DrepositoryId=people.apache.org-Durl=scp://people.apache.org/home/kelvingoodson/public_html/repo -DgeneratePom=fa lse -DpomFile=tuscany-sdo-tools-1.0-incubating-beta1.pom -Dfile= tuscany-sdo-tools-1.0-incubating-beta1.jar -DgeneratePom=fals e -DgroupId=org.apache.tuscany.sdo -DartifactId=tuscany-sdo-tools -Dversion= 1.0-incubating-beta1 [INFO] Scanning for projects... [INFO] Searching repository for plugin with prefix: 'deploy'. [INFO] [INFO] Building Maven Default Project [INFO]task-segment: [deploy:deploy-file] (aggregator-style) [INFO] [INFO] [deploy:deploy-file] Password:: Uploading: scp://people.apache.org/home/kelvingoodson/public_html/repo/org/apache/tuscany/sdo/tuscany-sdo-tools/1.0-incubatin g-beta1/tuscany-sdo-tools-1.0-incubating-beta1.jar 108K uploaded [INFO] Retrieving previous metadata from people.apache.org Password:: [INFO] [ERROR] BUILD ERROR [INFO] [INFO] Error installing artifact's metadata: Error installing metadata: Error copying POM to the local repository. File C:\Documents and Settings\ibm_user\.m2\repository\org\apache\tuscany\sdo\tuscany-sdo-tools\1.0-incubating-beta1\tuscany- sdo-tools-1.0-incubating-beta1.pom does not exist [2] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Deploy+Plugin [3] C:\temp>mvn deploy:deploy-file -DgroupId=org.apache.tuscany.sdo-DartifactId=tuscany-sdo -Dversion= 1.0-incubating-beta1 -Dpac kaging=pom -Dfile=tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubating-beta1.pom-Durl=scp://people.apache.org/home/kelvingoodson/public_html/repo -Dre positoryId=people.apache.org -DgeneratePom=false [INFO] Scanning for projects... [INFO] Searching repository for plugin with prefix: 'deploy'. [INFO] [INFO] Building Maven Default Project [INFO]task-segment: [deploy:deploy-file] (aggregator-style) [INFO] [INFO] [deploy:deploy-file] Password:: Uploading: scp://people.apache.org/home/kelvingoodson/public_html/repo/org/apache/tuscany/sdo/tuscany-sdo/1.0-incubating-beta 1/tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubating-beta1.pom 6K uploaded [INFO] Retrieving previous metadata from people.apache.org Password:: [INFO] [ERROR] FATAL ERROR [INFO] [INFO] null [INFO] [INFO] Trace java.lang.NullPointerException at org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtils.copyFile(FileUtils.java:795) at org.apache.maven.project.artifact.ProjectArtifactMetadata.storeInLocalRepository (ProjectArtifactMetadata.java:92) at org.apache.maven.artifact.repository.metadata.DefaultRepositoryMetadataManager.deploy (DefaultRepositoryMetadataMan ager.java:428) at org.apache.maven.artifact.deployer.DefaultArtifactDeployer.deploy (DefaultArtifactDeployer.java:86) at org.apache.maven.plugin.deploy.DeployFileMojo.execute( DeployFileMojo.java:236) at org.apache.maven.plugin.DefaultPluginManager.executeMojo( DefaultPluginManager.java:420) at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeGoals( DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:539) at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeStandaloneGoal( DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:493) at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeGoal( DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:463) at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeGoalAndHandleFailures (DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:311 ) at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeTaskSegments( De
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
On 4/25/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've got to the point where I have packaged up a new beta1 SDO java release candidate in the style if the last one [1], but that's only part of the process now that I have to set up a remote maven repository as a staging post for the deployed release candidate artifacts (as per the recent discussion on incubator general). I'm just about to figure out how to create/configure the repo, but any tips on the process for making the maven repo are welcome; Ideally the build would be setup with the maven release plugin, but without that you can deploy individual files manually. As an example, I've just deployed the sdo impl jar in that beta1-rc1 to a temp folder in my people.a.o space (http://people.apache.org/~antelder/temp/) with the following: mvn deploy:deploy-file -DgroupId=org.apache.tuscany.sdo-DartifactId=tuscany-sdo-impl -Dversion= 1.0-incubating-beta1 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile= tuscany-sdo-impl-1.0-incubating-beta1.jar -DrepositoryId=apache.rsync-Durl=scp://people.apache.org/home/antelder/public_html/temp ...ant
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
I've got to the point where I have packaged up a new beta1 SDO java release candidate in the style if the last one [1], but that's only part of the process now that I have to set up a remote maven repository as a staging post for the deployed release candidate artifacts (as per the recent discussion on incubator general). I'm just about to figure out how to create/configure the repo, but any tips on the process for making the maven repo are welcome; I'll post back my findings. [1] http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/beta1/RC1/ Kelvin. On 24/04/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ant, your note is well timed as I've had a couple of off-line chats with people in the last week about release naming, particularly with regard to the effect that a milestone or alpha name can have on uptake of a release. In the IRC chat of 16th April [1] we reached a conclusion that given the fact that a new release candidate had just been posted for consideration, we would leave naming as it was. However, I got the impression that in general the community was giving me an implicit +0 vote to retaining the M3 release tag, but the ideal would be to move to a beta1 tag. At the time there was a handful of small SDO 2.1 spec features for which we didn't have a first cut implementation. Now this has reduced to just a couple, and it seemed that there was consensus from the discussion that a beta* tag was not incompatible with this state, so long as the omissions were documented. The SDO RC3 has been available for a little while for comment, but has not received much attention. I have a couple of small non-blocking issues with the candidate that I have spotted that I would like to tidy up. So I propose that I quickly cut a new 1.0-incubating-beta1 tag from the M3 tag, make my small fixes (including adopting the incubating name convention over the previous incubator convention) post a new candidate and start a vote on that candidate. I'd like to do this ASAP and I don't think this is contentious, but I guess I need to give a little time for reaction before proceeding, as my actions would not be in accordance with the outcome community discussions; I propose to do this at start of UK business tomorrow. Kelvin [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16772.html On 24/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > What are we going to be calling this next SCA release? > > We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are > talking > about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was > some > discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha > release > names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound > unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking > about > making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are > becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me. > > So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could > try > to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming? > > Any comments or alternative name suggestions? > >...ant >
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions as to what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should we: 1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe 2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time 3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta" release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90? I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like to get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway. ...ant
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
I agree that beta1 sounds good and will encourage people to try Tuscany because it seems like a stable release (more so than our previous releases and attempted releases). And in terms of SCA spec APIs, I think we are pretty much at beta level currently. I would also regard the SDO implementation and APIs as being at beta level. However... I have some concerns about whether we can truly describe our current SCA implementation as being at beta level. If we are going to put "beta" on the outside of the box, then we had better make sure that "beta" code is inside the box as well. In the last few weeks we have been through very significant changes in the codebase. The progress has been remarkable, and the changes have been very positive, but there are still a few loose bits hanging out. One example of this is the lifecycle issues that I raised a few days ago. Another is the problems that people are currently having with Tomcat and Web Services. So I don't think what we have today is quite at the level of stability, completeness and quality that truly justifies a "beta" designation, and realistically I am not sure that we will be able to get the code to that point in the next week and be able to put out a "beta quality" release by JavaOne. So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it "beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level of quality even if that takes a little bit longer. Simon Raymond Feng wrote: +1. Thanks, Raymond - Original Message - From: "Luciano Resende" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:07 PM Subject: Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it) +1 As for DAS, as it has dependencies on SDO, I'd propose to follow the same name convention as SDO, and use beta1 as well. On 4/24/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ant elder wrote: > What are we going to be calling this next SCA release? > > We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are talking > about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was > some > discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha > release > names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound > unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking > about > making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are > becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me. > > So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could > try > to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming? > > Any comments or alternative name suggestions? > > ...ant > Good idea, beta1 makes sense to me as APIs and SPIs are getting stable, as is our support for the SCA assembly XML described in the SCA 1.0 spec. +1 from me. -- Jean-Sebastien - 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: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
+1. Thanks, Raymond - Original Message - From: "Luciano Resende" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:07 PM Subject: Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it) +1 As for DAS, as it has dependencies on SDO, I'd propose to follow the same name convention as SDO, and use beta1 as well. On 4/24/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ant elder wrote: > What are we going to be calling this next SCA release? > > We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are talking > about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was > some > discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha > release > names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound > unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking > about > making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are > becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me. > > So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could > try > to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming? > > Any comments or alternative name suggestions? > > ...ant > Good idea, beta1 makes sense to me as APIs and SPIs are getting stable, as is our support for the SCA assembly XML described in the SCA 1.0 spec. +1 from me. -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
+1 As for DAS, as it has dependencies on SDO, I'd propose to follow the same name convention as SDO, and use beta1 as well. On 4/24/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ant elder wrote: > What are we going to be calling this next SCA release? > > We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are talking > about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was > some > discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha > release > names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound > unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking > about > making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are > becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me. > > So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could > try > to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming? > > Any comments or alternative name suggestions? > > ...ant > Good idea, beta1 makes sense to me as APIs and SPIs are getting stable, as is our support for the SCA assembly XML described in the SCA 1.0 spec. +1 from me. -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
ant elder wrote: What are we going to be calling this next SCA release? We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are talking about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was some discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha release names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking about making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me. So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could try to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming? Any comments or alternative name suggestions? ...ant Good idea, beta1 makes sense to me as APIs and SPIs are getting stable, as is our support for the SCA assembly XML described in the SCA 1.0 spec. +1 from me. -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
On 4/24/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ant, your note is well timed as I've had a couple of off-line chats with people in the last week about release naming, particularly with regard to the effect that a milestone or alpha name can have on uptake of a release. In the IRC chat of 16th April [1] we reached a conclusion that given the fact that a new release candidate had just been posted for consideration, we would leave naming as it was. However, I got the impression that in general the community was giving me an implicit +0 vote to retaining the M3 release tag, but the ideal would be to move to a beta1 tag. At the time there was a handful of small SDO 2.1 spec features for which we didn't have a first cut implementation. Now this has reduced to just a couple, and it seemed that there was consensus from the discussion that a beta* tag was not incompatible with this state, so long as the omissions were documented. The SDO RC3 has been available for a little while for comment, but has not received much attention. I have a couple of small non-blocking issues with the candidate that I have spotted that I would like to tidy up. So I propose that I quickly cut a new 1.0-incubating-beta1 tag from the M3 tag, make my small fixes (including adopting the incubating name convention over the previous incubator convention) post a new candidate and start a vote on that candidate. I'd like to do this ASAP and I don't think this is contentious, but I guess I need to give a little time for reaction before proceeding, as my actions would not be in accordance with the outcome community discussions; I propose to do this at start of UK business tomorrow. Kelvin [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16772.html On 24/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What are we going to be calling this next SCA release? > > We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are talking > about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was some > discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha > release > names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound > unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking about > making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are > becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me. > > So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could try > to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming? > > Any comments or alternative name suggestions? > >...ant > Ant This is an interesting idea. I think going to beta1 will better describe the type of release I (we) would like to see. I think though that this does underline our need to get the supporting material e.g. samples, docs etc. up to the level we would expect of a beta release. This is not a surprise, it's been discussed on the release content thread and elsewhere but I think a naming proposition like this can help focus the mind (separate thread required to get all this stuff sorted) So are you suggesting we go to 1.0-incubating-beta1 as Kelvin suggested. Are there any modules that would be part of a beta release but would not be named this way?I don't have anything in mind just asking. Are there modules that we have in the build that we would choose to leave out if we call it a beta release? Simon
Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
Ant, your note is well timed as I've had a couple of off-line chats with people in the last week about release naming, particularly with regard to the effect that a milestone or alpha name can have on uptake of a release. In the IRC chat of 16th April [1] we reached a conclusion that given the fact that a new release candidate had just been posted for consideration, we would leave naming as it was. However, I got the impression that in general the community was giving me an implicit +0 vote to retaining the M3 release tag, but the ideal would be to move to a beta1 tag. At the time there was a handful of small SDO 2.1 spec features for which we didn't have a first cut implementation. Now this has reduced to just a couple, and it seemed that there was consensus from the discussion that a beta* tag was not incompatible with this state, so long as the omissions were documented. The SDO RC3 has been available for a little while for comment, but has not received much attention. I have a couple of small non-blocking issues with the candidate that I have spotted that I would like to tidy up. So I propose that I quickly cut a new 1.0-incubating-beta1 tag from the M3 tag, make my small fixes (including adopting the incubating name convention over the previous incubator convention) post a new candidate and start a vote on that candidate. I'd like to do this ASAP and I don't think this is contentious, but I guess I need to give a little time for reaction before proceeding, as my actions would not be in accordance with the outcome community discussions; I propose to do this at start of UK business tomorrow. Kelvin [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16772.html On 24/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What are we going to be calling this next SCA release? We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are talking about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was some discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha release names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking about making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me. So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could try to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming? Any comments or alternative name suggestions? ...ant
Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it)
What are we going to be calling this next SCA release? We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are talking about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was some discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha release names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking about making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me. So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could try to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming? Any comments or alternative name suggestions? ...ant
