[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [rt-pmc] Gemini subproject situation
|
Sorry my fault...
If you do a release then I think you should best avoid version numbers that sound like Milestones i.e. 1.0.0.M2. Your message is that its production quality and people might not want to use any software with a milestone postfix for production. So call it 1.0. (Calling it 0.9 is possible but that sounds as if its incomplete doesnt it ?)
Whether you like to leave graduation or not is your choice. Most people graduate in 1.0, but you dont have to......
just my 2 cents......
Am 18.01.2012 um 16:20 schrieb michael keith:
> 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
-------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------
