On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen <[email protected]> wrote: > Both PHP and Java depend on the same Javascript feature code. Apart from > that, I agree. > > I'd appreciate from both a participatory and a PR point of View a release > past Jan 1st.
Actually, considering the level of interest in Shindig, we should consider doing a press release -- if there are no objections, I'll start chatting with the PRC about it. They need about a two week lead time generally to get all ducks in a row (mostly in terms of getting us to get them the info they need :-) I'm happy to coordinate with the PRC, but we should have additional folks available for followup contacts (typically this will be press folks). -Brian > > Von meinem iPhone gesendet > > Am Dec 27, 2008 um 22:02 schrieb "Brian McCallister" <[email protected]>: > >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Chris Chabot <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hey guys, >>> >>> I just wanted to ping the list and see what action items are still open >>> before we can try to roll the actual release tar balls. >>> >>> On the PHP side I've put in some long days before we thought we would be >>> releasing, so that's been ready and waiting ever since, so no reasons >>> there >>> to block the release that i'm aware of. >> >> Is there any reason to bind the PHP impl to the Java impl for releases? >> >> I see none. >> >>> >>> As far as i'm aware much of the maven release procedure has been >>> addressed >>> (but it's all voodoo for me, so feel free to correct me), there's some >>> discussion ongoing still about the release package names though we seem >>> to >>> have an majority prefering the shindig-{java,php} approach in some form >>> or >>> another; And the hard coded path problem, while it is a nice to have >>> doesn't >>> seem like a blocking issue to me personally with a rewrite jetty solution >>> suggested. >>> >>> That leaves the xml output of some internal classes under discussion, >>> though >>> Kevin very much gave the impression there that that was not part of the >>> contract of those classes, so not something we want to overhaul before we >>> do >>> a 1.0 release. There's the issue of the jslint output warnings, and some >>> RAT >>> warnings (which i send an inquery about to try to find out what the right >>> approach is there, but haven't recieved a reply on yet). >>> >>> Most people will be taking a xmas break after the end of this week (if >>> not >>> already), so if there are substantial action items still open i guess >>> we'll >>> have to be realistic and shoot for jan 2009. >>> >>> Is there anything missing from this summary? And do we have any idea of >>> when >>> we can fix and/or put these issues to rest? >>> >>> There's a lot of people who would *love* to have a stable release they >>> can >>> work with, so lets not forget about them >>> >>> -- Chris >>> >
