Re: [rt-pmc] Gemini subproject situation

[michael keith <michael.keith@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Sounds like we have consensus (at least amongst those who spoke up).
Thanks, everyone.

On 18/01/2012 11:06 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> oh yes, Tom is right, I missed that as well
>
> just graduate it and make a proper release...then just don't develop
> on it anymore, that seems fine to me, and since you also said that if
> things changed and there were new development needed it would happen,
> that is different than releasing and abandoning it
>
> cheers,
> jesse
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 09:32, Thomas Watson<tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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