[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [rt-pmc] Gemini subproject situation
|
ok but at the sametime your are discontinuing its support. At least thats what I read from your email. I am not sure I understand yet how that fits together.
As I understand your mail you dont plan any further releases whatsoever. Now doing a release sends a strong message as you are saying yourself, and I agree. Now if you dont mean what you are saying, I think you should be extra careful......
Am 18.01.2012 um 15:36 schrieb michael keith:
> The difference between a release and a milestone is much greater than
> the simple name on a JAR (the JAR naming is an topic that I am not even
> going to touch right now). The Eclipse community takes great pride in
> the super sekrit powers endowed to a JAR during the release process, and
> we want people to view it as something that has undergone a well-defined
> and rigorous set of steps. It is not meant to be taken or received lightly!
>
> On 18/01/2012 9:18 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>> o.O
>>
>> what exactly does anyone gain from having something named
>> 0.9.0.v201201180815 over 1.0.0.M1
>>
>> is there some super sekrit special powers granted on osgi land? its a
>> jar file...I don't see the distinction of M1 vs v201201180815 for
>> anything other then political reasons, if the M1 just needs signed
>> then make an M2 and sign it...we run our M and RC releases through the
>> signing process for our p2 repos
>>
>> anyway, probably safe to ignore my thoughts and go with what tom says
>> then, he is the master in these things :)
>>
>> cheers,
>> jesse
>>
>> --
>> jesse mcconnell
>> jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 08:04, michael keith<michael.keith@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> That very important differentiation is exactly the issue :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/01/2012 3:49 AM, Glyn Normington wrote:
>>>> Seems reasonable to me.
>>>>
>>>> But let's avoid using the R-word when talking about milestones. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Glyn
>>>>
>>>> On 17 Jan 2012, at 23:10, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> as there must have been development after the M1 release, what about
>>>>> making a 1.0.0.M2 released version and then just indicate that it is
>>>>> eol and not being maintained any longer
>>>>>
>>>>> seems the easiest thing to do osgi wise
>>>>>
>>>>> jesse
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> jesse mcconnell
>>>>> jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 16:36, Thomas Watson<tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm not in favor of releasing anything from incubation unless it is
>>>>>> mature
>>>>>> and has plans to be maintained and evolve in the future. My vote would
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> 2). My rational is that you have not really ever made a real release of
>>>>>> this stuff so it is fine to degrade the version to 0.9.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless I am mistaken it sounds like very few, if any, would be effected
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> degrading the version of this bundle when you make the first release as
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> incubation project. Am I missing something? Do others in the community
>>>>>> view the 1.0.0 M1 contents as a released version of the Gemini Naming
>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> |------------>
>>>>>> | From: |
>>>>>> |------------>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>>> |michael keith<michael.keith@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> |
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>>> |------------>
>>>>>> | To: |
>>>>>> |------------>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>>> |Runtime Project PMC mailing list<rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>>>> |
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>>> |------------>
>>>>>> | Date: |
>>>>>> |------------>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>>> |01/17/2012 04:10 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> |
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>>> |------------>
>>>>>> | Subject: |
>>>>>> |------------>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>>> |[rt-pmc] Gemini subproject situation
>>>>>> |
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a question in the Gemini project that we would like to ask the
>>>>>> PMC to weigh in on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Gemini Naming project was a Gemini subproject that was never
>>>>>> intended to be maintained much, but that some people find useful. It is
>>>>>> the implementation of the OSGi JNDI spec that might not ever be updated
>>>>>> because there will likely not be a need. Bob Nettleton from Oracle wrote
>>>>>> and led the project until about a year ago when he was no longer able to
>>>>>> be involved. He made a 1.0.0 M1 milestone available. The project never
>>>>>> left incubation when most of the other Gemini subprojects did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have had some people ask for a release and one suggestion was that we
>>>>>> put out a 0.9 release and leave the project in incubation. However,
>>>>>> since a 1.0.0 M1 milestone was already made available it would seem like
>>>>>> the wrong choice to put out a lower 0.9 release at this stage. I always
>>>>>> figured that projects should not release a 1.0 while in incubation, but
>>>>>> the alternative is to graduate the project, release a 1.0, and
>>>>>> effectively not do any development on it. It should be released, but
>>>>>> which of these options, or some alternative option, do people think
>>>>>> would be the best course of action?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Bring the project to graduation (even though there may not be much
>>>>>> development on it after that point) and release a 1.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Leave the project in incubation and put out a 0.9 release, even
>>>>>> though a 1.0 M1 is already available
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) Leave the project in incubation and put out a 1.0 release
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever choice is the right one would be fine, we just don't know what
>>>>>> that is.
>>>>>> My vote would probably be for (1), but as the Gemini project lead I am
>>>>>> somewhat interest-conflicted :-).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> -Mike
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> rt-pmc mailing list
>>>>>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> rt-pmc mailing list
>>>>>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rt-pmc mailing list
>>>>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rt-pmc mailing list
>>>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rt-pmc mailing list
>>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>> _______________________________________________
>> rt-pmc mailing list
>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
-------------------------------------------------------------
compeople AG
Untermainanlage 8
60329 Frankfurt/Main
fon: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 0
fax: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 22
web: http://www.compeople.de/
Vorstand: Jürgen Wiesmaier
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
USt-IdNr. DE207665352
-------------------------------------------------------------
