beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eddie O'Neil" <ekon...@gmail.com>
Subject a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]
Date Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:38:44 GMT
  Sure -- that'd definitely help.  As my slow replies probably
indicate, I've been busy with some other things and haven't been
super-active recently.

  There are several tasks that need to happen for release:

- branching
- remove incomplete data grid features in branch
- update version numbers in the documentation, build, and POMs
- create / sign release package
- vote on release package
- publish approved binaries / maven distributables / refreshed documentation

  I'll be able to help with branching / data grid work after Wednesday
and can take care of the release packaging / signing after that.  If
you'd like to get started before then, take it away.  :)

  One thing we should review is whether we need to include LICENSE
files in all of our JARs.  My reading of this:

  http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html

indicates that we don't strictly need to do this -- but other projects
are currently doing this so that the JARs are self-describing outside
the context of the distribution package.  I'd be in favor of doing
this work.

Eddie

On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <carlin.rogers@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Eddie,
>
> I could volunteer by creating the branch and backing out the changes,
> if that would help.
>
> Are there other release tasks that you think some of us other folks in
> the dev community should/could be doing?
>
> Kind regards,
> Carlin
>
> On 10/16/06, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
> > changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
> > to volunteer.  :)
> >
> >   The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
> > unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
> > in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
> > features, and this doesn't seem desirable.
> >
> >   Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
> > possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.
> >
> >   My $0.02.
> >
> > Eddie
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <scott.musser@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > How much work would there be in option #1?
> > > Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> > > either option would work.
> > > Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> > > time rather than rushing.
> > > Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> > > the rest of the community?
> > > It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> > > this incomplete feature might be.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <carlin.rogers@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > >
> > > > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > > > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > > > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > > > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> > > >
> > > > Carlin
> > > >
> > > > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > > > >
> > > > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial
data
> > > > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > > > >
> > > > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > > > >
> > > > >   Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eddie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <kentaminator@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed
a lot of bugs --
> > > > I
> > > > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number
of bugs
> > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within
an IDE (many
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security
and deadlocks
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes
into a patch
> > > > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <carlin.rogers@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next
beehive release.
> > > > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements
fixed along with
> > > > a few
> > > > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like
good improvements
> > > > on
> > > > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community.
This includes
> > > > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow
deadlock fixes as
> > > > well.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be
a patch release (
> > > > 1.0.2)
> > > > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks
where thinking
> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message