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
