[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Heads up ... new "Recommended" Orbit repo for Juno SR2
|
It is too late for SR2, for several
reasons, but a great suggestion for Kepler, if the TM project (or others)
want it.
Just to briefly outline the reasons,
we are already up to RC2 and RC3, so I think it'd have to be a "blocking
problem" to cause all that stress, and it doesn't sound like a blocking
problem, from what I've heard. I don't know who else uses it, but typically
it's only reasonable to give the "community" of projects and
adopters a minimum of a month, or two, notice of what's coming in a maintenance
release, especially if it involves a "major" version change [And,
I mean a month or two before the first release candidate, not the "GA
date"]. We in Orbit do have a generic "ramp down" process
for the purpose of stability, so it'd have to be a pretty strong case.
But, if you and the TM project think it is a blocking problem, and
worth the churn, feel free to open bugs, CQs, etc., and continue to make
your case. I'm just giving you my impression from the little I know.
[I would say it would have been a good
suggestion a month or two ago, but not sure when 3.2 was released, since
the date on their web site says "TBA" (even though it appears
to be available for download), so, maybe just released?]
And, Kepler is not that far away. I
don't recall seeing the "CQ deadline" for Kepler officially announced
recently by the Eclipse Foundation, but its typically "M5" which
is just a couple of weeks away (February 8). (Its not that they can not
be submitted after that, but those submitted by the M5 deadline allows
for proper planning, etc. and thus given higher priority, all else being
equal). But, I'm not specking for the Eclipse Foundation ... I hope they
weren't waiting for me :) .... just saying what it has been in the past
several yearly releases.
This is probably not a very constructive
reply (and not what you wanted to hear) ... but, I do think we need to
focus on stability for Juno, and new things for Kepler.
Thanks for bringing it up, though.
From:
Stephan Leicht Vogt
<Stephan.Leicht@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
"cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:
01/29/2013 01:51 AM
Subject:
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev]
Heads up ... new "Recommended" Orbit repo for Juno SR2
Sent by:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi
Some text went missing in the last mail. At least a:
Greetings
Stephan
---
Stephan Leicht Vogt
Senior Software Engineer
BSI Business Systems Integration AG
Täfernstrasse 16a, CH-5405 Baden
Phone (direct): +41 56 484 19 47
www.bsiag.com
On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:48 AM, Stephan Leicht Vogt <Stephan.Leicht@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi all
Wouldn't it be better in this situation
to pack the newest Version 3.2 from commons net to Orbit. Even if this
comes up a little late and the R Version of Orbit is already promoted for
Juno SR2. As Apache has released 3.2 this would be IMHO the better way
than to pack an version which is two years old into the EPP. I would do
the update but David Dykstal would have to open a (high prio?) CQ from
the TM Project to use Apache Commons Net 3.2 so Orbit could open a piggyback.
What do you think? Or
- From: "Oberhuber, Martin"
<Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:30:34 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Delivered-to: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AQHN+leHmRtU+ONw4kCQt/T6cQwZMJhZRdgAgAAH+ID//34PkA==
- Thread-topic: [cross-project-issues-dev]
Heads up ... new "Recommended" Orbit repo for Juno SR2
Hi David (and
all),
We only want a build-time
selection of Commons Net 2.2 from Orbit.
The MANIFEST.MF at runtime
should be open to allow [2.2,4.0) or even higher (as per the recent ICU4J
discussion).
The reason for picking
2.2 by default is that it’s known to work safely whereas 3.1 can produce
a deadlock in some situations with Telnet.
End users should be able
to deploy 3.2 (which is not in Orbit yet) or 3.1 (if they are not affected
by the deadlock situation).
Does anybody know how to
enforce a particular bundle version install at build time with Maven ?
Thanks,
Martin |
---
Stephan Leicht Vogt
Senior Software Engineer
BSI Business Systems Integration AG
Täfernstrasse 16a, CH-5405 Baden
Phone (direct): +41 56 484 19 47
www.bsiag.com
[attachment "smime.p7s" deleted
by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM] _______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev