[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [rt-pmc] Gemini subproject situation
|
Looking back at your original note, I now realize that your preference was
to graduate the project. I originally thought your were reluctant to do
that. So I was going down the path of you publishing a release from the
incubator project, in that case I was recommending that you use version
0.9. If your preference is to first graduate the project and then do a
release from the newly graduated project then I do think using version 1.0
is the correct thing to do for that release.
Tom
|------------>
| From: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|michael keith <michael.keith@xxxxxxxxxx> |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Runtime Project PMC mailing list <rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|01/18/2012 09:21 AM |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Re: [rt-pmc] Gemini subproject situation |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I didn't say I wanted to stay in incubation, in fact I think I stated
that my preference is sort of leaning toward leaving incubation. I just
want the project to be able to have a full-fledged release for the
community, I don't really care whether it happens within an incubated or
graduated project. It was just that given the circumstances the most
correct path to get there was a little unclear.
On 18/01/2012 10:09 AM, Campo, Christian wrote:
> 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
