SDO dependencies for SCA 1.0 release, was Fwd: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next release, was: SCA 0.92 release?
What are you guys thinking about SDO requirements for SCA 1.0 release ? SDO 1.0-incubating ? -- Forwarded message -- From: Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Aug 27, 2007 2:58 AM Subject: Re: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next release, was: SCA 0.92 release? To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 8/27/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/9/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > - Post 0.95, maybe a couple of weeks after the release, we'd cut > > another branch and head with that for 1.0 release. Being a 1.0 > > release, we prob. need a branch early as that so that we can whet the > > things we are targetting for the release. > > > This seems like a really good idea to me. The 0.99 release has again shown > that it always takes at least a couple of RCs to discover and resolve > regressions caused by last minute changes and to polish up the samples, > and > for 1.0 we're all likely to be a bit more pedantic about readme and sample > problems. How about aiming for a 1.0 branch and RC1 around the 14th of > September? That gives 3 weeks from now for getting things ready and then > two > weeks which should enough for 2 or 3 RCs and voting and still get a 1.0 in > September. > > I've created a 1.0 JIRA version and started moving into there JIRAs i'd > like > to try to get done for 1.0 : > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310210&fixfor=12312698 > > > One thing that would be good to do now while they're fresh in our minds is > for people to commit fixes to trunk for all the sample and readme issues > they reported in the 0.99 review so they don't get forgotten till > 1.0review. > >...ant > +1 from me. I think we are going to need the extra time to fix the many small things we found this time round. Simon -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SDO dependencies for SCA 1.0 release, was Fwd: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next release, was: SCA 0.92 release?
That would be my guess unless there's a newer SDO release by then but i've not seen any mention of that in the SDO emails. ...ant On 8/27/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What are you guys thinking about SDO requirements for SCA 1.0 release > ? SDO 1.0-incubating ? > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Aug 27, 2007 2:58 AM > Subject: Re: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next > release, was: SCA 0.92 release? > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On 8/27/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 8/9/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > - Post 0.95, maybe a couple of weeks after the release, we'd cut > > > another branch and head with that for 1.0 release. Being a 1.0 > > > release, we prob. need a branch early as that so that we can whet the > > > things we are targetting for the release. > > > > > > This seems like a really good idea to me. The 0.99 release has again > shown > > that it always takes at least a couple of RCs to discover and resolve > > regressions caused by last minute changes and to polish up the samples, > > and > > for 1.0 we're all likely to be a bit more pedantic about readme and > sample > > problems. How about aiming for a 1.0 branch and RC1 around the 14th of > > September? That gives 3 weeks from now for getting things ready and then > > two > > weeks which should enough for 2 or 3 RCs and voting and still get a 1.0in > > September. > > > > I've created a 1.0 JIRA version and started moving into there JIRAs i'd > > like > > to try to get done for 1.0 : > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310210&fixfor=12312698 > > > > > > One thing that would be good to do now while they're fresh in our minds > is > > for people to commit fixes to trunk for all the sample and readme issues > > they reported in the 0.99 review so they don't get forgotten till > > 1.0review. > > > >...ant > > > +1 from me. I think we are going to need the extra time to fix the many > small things we found this time round. > > Simon > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany Committer > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: SDO dependencies for SCA 1.0 release, was Fwd: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next release, was: SCA 0.92 release?
There are no plans in place yet for the next SDO release. 1.0-incubating would seem the obvious choice. Kelvin. On 28/08/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That would be my guess unless there's a newer SDO release by then but i've > not seen any mention of that in the SDO emails. > > ...ant > > On 8/27/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What are you guys thinking about SDO requirements for SCA 1.0 release > > ? SDO 1.0-incubating ? > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > From: Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Aug 27, 2007 2:58 AM > > Subject: Re: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next > > release, was: SCA 0.92 release? > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > On 8/27/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 8/9/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Post 0.95, maybe a couple of weeks after the release, we'd cut > > > > another branch and head with that for 1.0 release. Being a 1.0 > > > > release, we prob. need a branch early as that so that we can whet the > > > > things we are targetting for the release. > > > > > > > > > This seems like a really good idea to me. The 0.99 release has again > > shown > > > that it always takes at least a couple of RCs to discover and resolve > > > regressions caused by last minute changes and to polish up the samples, > > > and > > > for 1.0 we're all likely to be a bit more pedantic about readme and > > sample > > > problems. How about aiming for a 1.0 branch and RC1 around the 14th of > > > September? That gives 3 weeks from now for getting things ready and then > > > two > > > weeks which should enough for 2 or 3 RCs and voting and still get a 1.0in > > > September. > > > > > > I've created a 1.0 JIRA version and started moving into there JIRAs i'd > > > like > > > to try to get done for 1.0 : > > > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310210&fixfor=12312698 > > > > > > > > > One thing that would be good to do now while they're fresh in our minds > > is > > > for people to commit fixes to trunk for all the sample and readme issues > > > they reported in the 0.99 review so they don't get forgotten till > > > 1.0review. > > > > > >...ant > > > > > +1 from me. I think we are going to need the extra time to fix the many > > small things we found this time round. > > > > Simon > > > > > > -- > > Luciano Resende > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > http://lresende.blogspot.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: SDO dependencies for SCA 1.0 release, was Fwd: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next release, was: SCA 0.92 release?
Great, so looks like we would need a DAS release compatible with SDO 1.0 in order to include any SCA/DAS integration in the SCA 1.0 release. I'll try to get that done, by cutting a branch and working on a DAS release sometime this week. Please let me know if there is any changes in plan. On 8/28/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are no plans in place yet for the next SDO release. > 1.0-incubating would seem the obvious choice. > > Kelvin. > > On 28/08/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That would be my guess unless there's a newer SDO release by then but i've > > not seen any mention of that in the SDO emails. > > > > ...ant > > > > On 8/27/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > What are you guys thinking about SDO requirements for SCA 1.0 release > > > ? SDO 1.0-incubating ? > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > > From: Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: Aug 27, 2007 2:58 AM > > > Subject: Re: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next > > > release, was: SCA 0.92 release? > > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > On 8/27/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8/9/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Post 0.95, maybe a couple of weeks after the release, we'd cut > > > > > another branch and head with that for 1.0 release. Being a 1.0 > > > > > release, we prob. need a branch early as that so that we can whet the > > > > > things we are targetting for the release. > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems like a really good idea to me. The 0.99 release has again > > > shown > > > > that it always takes at least a couple of RCs to discover and resolve > > > > regressions caused by last minute changes and to polish up the samples, > > > > and > > > > for 1.0 we're all likely to be a bit more pedantic about readme and > > > sample > > > > problems. How about aiming for a 1.0 branch and RC1 around the 14th of > > > > September? That gives 3 weeks from now for getting things ready and then > > > > two > > > > weeks which should enough for 2 or 3 RCs and voting and still get a > > > > 1.0in > > > > September. > > > > > > > > I've created a 1.0 JIRA version and started moving into there JIRAs i'd > > > > like > > > > to try to get done for 1.0 : > > > > > > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310210&fixfor=12312698 > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing that would be good to do now while they're fresh in our minds > > > is > > > > for people to commit fixes to trunk for all the sample and readme issues > > > > they reported in the 0.99 review so they don't get forgotten till > > > > 1.0review. > > > > > > > >...ant > > > > > > > +1 from me. I think we are going to need the extra time to fix the many > > > small things we found this time round. > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Luciano Resende > > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > > http://lresende.blogspot.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] > > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JIRA-1673 and SDO dependencies for SCA 1.0 release, was Fwd: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next release, was: SCA 0.92 release?
We have found an issue on the SDO Tools, described in JIRA-1673 [1] that is affecting the proper generation of java interfaces from a given wsdl. What's the plan to get this fix, when available, in SCA 1.0 release ? This might require a new SDO release ? [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1673 On 9/3/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Great, so looks like we would need a DAS release compatible with SDO > 1.0 in order to include any SCA/DAS integration in the SCA 1.0 > release. I'll try to get that done, by cutting a branch and working on > a DAS release sometime this week. Please let me know if there is any > changes in plan. > > On 8/28/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are no plans in place yet for the next SDO release. > > 1.0-incubating would seem the obvious choice. > > > > Kelvin. > > > > On 28/08/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That would be my guess unless there's a newer SDO release by then but i've > > > not seen any mention of that in the SDO emails. > > > > > > ...ant > > > > > > On 8/27/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > What are you guys thinking about SDO requirements for SCA 1.0 release > > > > ? SDO 1.0-incubating ? > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > > > From: Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Date: Aug 27, 2007 2:58 AM > > > > Subject: Re: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next > > > > release, was: SCA 0.92 release? > > > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/27/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 8/9/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Post 0.95, maybe a couple of weeks after the release, we'd cut > > > > > > another branch and head with that for 1.0 release. Being a 1.0 > > > > > > release, we prob. need a branch early as that so that we can whet > > > > > > the > > > > > > things we are targetting for the release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems like a really good idea to me. The 0.99 release has again > > > > shown > > > > > that it always takes at least a couple of RCs to discover and resolve > > > > > regressions caused by last minute changes and to polish up the > > > > > samples, > > > > > and > > > > > for 1.0 we're all likely to be a bit more pedantic about readme and > > > > sample > > > > > problems. How about aiming for a 1.0 branch and RC1 around the 14th of > > > > > September? That gives 3 weeks from now for getting things ready and > > > > > then > > > > > two > > > > > weeks which should enough for 2 or 3 RCs and voting and still get a > > > > > 1.0in > > > > > September. > > > > > > > > > > I've created a 1.0 JIRA version and started moving into there JIRAs > > > > > i'd > > > > > like > > > > > to try to get done for 1.0 : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310210&fixfor=12312698 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing that would be good to do now while they're fresh in our > > > > > minds > > > > is > > > > > for people to commit fixes to trunk for all the sample and readme > > > > > issues > > > > > they reported in the 0.99 review so they don't get forgotten till > > > > > 1.0review. > > > > > > > > > >...ant > > > > > > > > > +1 from me. I think we are going to need the extra time to fix the many > > > > small things we found this time round. > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Luciano Resende > > > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.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] > > > > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany Committer > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JIRA-1673 and SDO dependencies for SCA 1.0 release, was Fwd: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next release, was: SCA 0.92 release?
Luciano, can you confirm in the JIRA whether the updated fix is good? I'll keep an eye on this thread to see how your plans develop, and what that might mean for SDO release plans. Kelvin. On 10/09/2007, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have found an issue on the SDO Tools, described in JIRA-1673 [1] > that is affecting the proper generation of java interfaces from a > given wsdl. > > What's the plan to get this fix, when available, in SCA 1.0 release ? > This might require a new SDO release ? > > [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1673 > > On 9/3/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Great, so looks like we would need a DAS release compatible with SDO > > 1.0 in order to include any SCA/DAS integration in the SCA 1.0 > > release. I'll try to get that done, by cutting a branch and working on > > a DAS release sometime this week. Please let me know if there is any > > changes in plan. > > > > On 8/28/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There are no plans in place yet for the next SDO release. > > > 1.0-incubating would seem the obvious choice. > > > > > > Kelvin. > > > > > > On 28/08/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > That would be my guess unless there's a newer SDO release by then but > > > > i've > > > > not seen any mention of that in the SDO emails. > > > > > > > > ...ant > > > > > > > > On 8/27/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What are you guys thinking about SDO requirements for SCA 1.0 release > > > > > ? SDO 1.0-incubating ? > > > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > > > > From: Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Date: Aug 27, 2007 2:58 AM > > > > > Subject: Re: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next > > > > > release, was: SCA 0.92 release? > > > > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/27/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/9/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Post 0.95, maybe a couple of weeks after the release, we'd cut > > > > > > > another branch and head with that for 1.0 release. Being a 1.0 > > > > > > > release, we prob. need a branch early as that so that we can whet > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > things we are targetting for the release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems like a really good idea to me. The 0.99 release has again > > > > > shown > > > > > > that it always takes at least a couple of RCs to discover and > > > > > > resolve > > > > > > regressions caused by last minute changes and to polish up the > > > > > > samples, > > > > > > and > > > > > > for 1.0 we're all likely to be a bit more pedantic about readme and > > > > > sample > > > > > > problems. How about aiming for a 1.0 branch and RC1 around the 14th > > > > > > of > > > > > > September? That gives 3 weeks from now for getting things ready and > > > > > > then > > > > > > two > > > > > > weeks which should enough for 2 or 3 RCs and voting and still get a > > > > > > 1.0in > > > > > > September. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've created a 1.0 JIRA version and started moving into there JIRAs > > > > > > i'd > > > > > > like > > > > > > to try to get done for 1.0 : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310210&fixfor=12312698 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing that would be good to do now while they're fresh in our > > > > > > minds > > > > > is > > > > > > for people to commit fixes to trunk for all the sample and readme > > > > > > issues > > > > > > they reported in the 0.99 review so they don't get forgotten till > > > > > > 1.0review. > > > > > > > > > > > >...ant > > > > > > > > > > > +1 from me. I think we are going to need the extra time to fix the > > > > > many > > > > > small things we found this time round. > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Luciano Resende > > > > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.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] > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Luciano Resende > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany Committer > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > >
Re: JIRA-1673 and SDO dependencies for SCA 1.0 release, was Fwd: SCA 1.0 release (was Re: Release management for next release, was: SCA 0.92 release?
kelvin goodson wrote: Luciano, can you confirm in the JIRA whether the updated fix is good? I'll keep an eye on this thread to see how your plans develop, and what that might mean for SDO release plans. Kelvin. On 10/09/2007, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We have found an issue on the SDO Tools, described in JIRA-1673 [1] that is affecting the proper generation of java interfaces from a given wsdl. What's the plan to get this fix, when available, in SCA 1.0 release ? This might require a new SDO release ? [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1673 I have checked in a workaround for this problem under revision r574423. We should leverage the SDO fix as soon as it's in an SDO release, but the workaround in place in r574423 will allow a Tuscany SCA 1.0 release to work with the published SDO 1.0 release. I can't comment on the SDO fix as I've just looked into the workaround, but Luciano probably can. -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
