[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [rt-pmc] Gemini subproject situation
|
Ok maybe you can help me understand why you are not just leave incubation, graduate and do a full 1.0 release ?
I reread your original email and didnt see a hint, why you want to stay in incubation. (its of course your choice, but I am curious)
christian
Am 18.01.2012 um 16:03 schrieb michael keith:
> Just to clarify a few things:
>
> - I never said that support would be discontinued, I said that it was
> unlikely much more development would occur on it (for the reasons I
> already gave). If there are bugs that need to be fixed they will be
> fixed, and if people have support issues they will be dealt with. This
> should be expected with any release from any active project at Eclipse
> and will be the case for the Naming subproject.
>
> - The strong message that is being sent by putting out a release is
> exactly the message the Eclipse community wants a release to send, i.e.
> that the software has undergone a thorough IP review, peer review, PMC
> approval, has suitable documentation, tests, etc, and meets the high
> standards that Eclipse sets out. To my knowledge, putting out a release
> makes no promise of future releases.
>
> In short, I do mean what I say (although I may not have necessarily been
> saying everything that I mean...)
>
> -Mike
>
> On 18/01/2012 9:45 AM, Campo, Christian wrote:
>> 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
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------------------------------------------------------
