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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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'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
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
) 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
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
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
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
+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
+1.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
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
longer.
Simon
Raymond Feng wrote:
+1.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message - From: Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What
should be in it)
+1
1.0-incubator-M2 rfeng, dkulp, lresende, bdaniel, kgoodson
0.95-incubatorvenkat, aborley
I included dkulp's proposal on the format.
Looks like the preference is for 1.0-incubator-M2 so I will start
to update the poms to that.
--
Jeremy
On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:17 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
+1 for 1.0-incubator-M2
On 10/09/06, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any more thoughts on this? Most popular so far is 1.0-incubator-M2
--
Jeremy
On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:17 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Before publishing artifacts to the snapshot repo I need to make
sure all the versions
Not trying to open any worm-cans, but having 1.0 at the start of the name
makes it look like it's a 1.0 release, when in actuality it's still a
milestone release - is this the effect we're looking for? Is the code at a
1.0 level of quality, stability and functionality? Or would people say this
is
Hi, I have the same thoughts as Andy and infact this is precisely why I
backed '0.95-incubator'.
- Venkat
On 9/11/06, Andrew Borley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not trying to open any worm-cans, but having 1.0 at the start of the name
makes it look like it's a 1.0 release, when in actuality it's
On Sep 11, 2006, at 1:24 AM, Andrew Borley wrote:
Not trying to open any worm-cans, but having 1.0 at the start of
the name
makes it look like it's a 1.0 release, when in actuality it's still a
milestone release - is this the effect we're looking for? Is the
code at a
1.0 level of quality,
Any more thoughts on this? Most popular so far is 1.0-incubator-M2
--
Jeremy
On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:17 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Before publishing artifacts to the snapshot repo I need to make
sure all the versions contain incubator which means updating all
the POMs. I would like to change
Before publishing artifacts to the snapshot repo I need to make sure
all the versions contain incubator which means updating all the
POMs. I would like to change this to the version of this next release
and so would like input on what that should be:
[ ] 1.0-M2-incubator
[ ]
+1 on 1.0-M2-incubator.
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:17 AM
Subject: [POLL] Release name
Before publishing artifacts to the snapshot repo I need to make sure
all the versions
Hi Jeremy,
'0.95-incubator'.
I vaguely recollect reading some mail that mentioned that M* is necessary in
incubator releases.. if this is true then...
'0.95-M2-incubator'
Thanks
- Venkat
On 9/8/06, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before publishing artifacts to the snapshot repo I
On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:43 AM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
'0.95-incubator'.
I vaguely recollect reading some mail that mentioned that M* is
necessary in
incubator releases.. if this is true then...
It is not - incubator is but that's all.
--
Jeremy
One change: we should definitely be consistent with the other incubator
projects on this. CXF, Yoko, and MyFaces have all gone with the format:
#.#-incubator-M#
or
#.#-incubator-alpha-#
(incubator before the build qualifier)
Thus, the list should be:
[ ] 1.0-incubator-M2
[ ]
+1 for for 1.0-incubator-M2
Is 095 related to SCA spec ? Then this is not going to match with SDO and
DAS, right ?
- Luciano
On 9/8/06, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One change: we should definitely be consistent with the other incubator
projects on this. CXF, Yoko, and MyFaces
+1 for 1.0-incubator-M2
Brent
On 9/8/06, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 for for 1.0-incubator-M2
Is 095 related to SCA spec ? Then this is not going to match with SDO and
DAS, right ?
- Luciano
On 9/8/06, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One change: we should definitely
32 matches
Mail list logo
