Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-axis-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 74485 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2003 23:54:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 74476 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2003 23:53:59 -0000 Message-ID: <017101c2c33a$8fe11e90$03000100@lankabookwin2k> From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" To: References: <3E302704.5020907@cs.indiana.edu> Subject: Re: [wsif] irc chat log about final release Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:52:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Spam-Rating: 208.185.179.12.available.above.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hi Alek, What time next Thu (for the post-2.0 chat)? Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aleksander Slominski" To: Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:31 PM Subject: [wsif] irc chat log about final release > hi, > > this was short chat as first official 2.0 version is almost ready, remaining tasks > * RC4 release Friday (jan 24th) and unless major problems are discovered it is renamed to 2.0 > * no changes or new tasks until they are absolutely required as we want RC4 to be final > * everybody check current RC4 release (soon final 2.0) and report problems > * write release summary and detailed list of how samples were tested > * test more RC3 on linux and solaris (alek) > > next IRC chat is (tentatively) planned for Thursday Jan 30th to talk about what is next to do after 2.0. > > thanks, > > alek > > chat log: > > [10:06] We're all here (Jeremy, Ant, Owen, Mark) > [10:06] Shall we start? > [10:07] i think so > [10:07] let's wrap this up in 5 minutes, I want tpo eat my sandwich > [10:07] :-) > [10:08] ok, so the RC3 is up and seems to be ok > [10:08] the samples (except for JMS on JBoss) work > [10:08] This morning all of us got together and went thru it, made a list of minor changes > [10:08] I checked in minor doc changes, Owen will shortly add WebSphere-setup docs for the > J2EE samples > [10:09] i checked code on solaris > [10:09] cool, solaris ok? > [10:09] and there is small chnage i check in for classpath.sh > [10:09] great > [10:09] *** antElder (~ant@imhotep.hursley.ibm.com) has joined channel #wsif > [10:10] We plan to run tests on the RC3 and if everything passes we can cut the release > tomorrow, what do you think? > [10:10] The major condition is that there should be no code change between the RC3 and the > final release, if there is we will cut an RC4 and delay the final > [10:11] i would have one more day and RC4 tomorrow > [10:11] and then if it is OK to promote it to 2.0 release (on monday?) > [10:11] that gives more time for testing > [10:12] true, but we will run the test suite today and that's it > [10:12] we need also write some release notes > [10:12] we don't plan to test more than that, do you? if not I don't see any reason to delay > the release till Monday > [10:13] yes, we need release notes > [10:13] did you check it on linux too? > [10:13] no > [10:13] could you? > [10:13] yes - but that will take a bit of time > [10:13] ok > [10:14] i wanted also to get JBoss sampel to work ... > [10:14] that doesn't work prolly because of a JBoss thing (it works on WAS) > [10:15] If it is an ejb-jar.xml/jboss.xml change I don't mind fixing it > [10:15] what is the error? > [10:15] but i wouldn't want to touch the MDB code or the client code just to make JBoss happy > (at least not right now) > [10:16] don't know. some kind of connection failure. And the behavior differs between runs > (haven't investigated much) > [10:16] i see > [10:16] have you seen the error? > [10:16] it is possible it is my env > [10:16] but then we at least need to mention it in docs for this release > [10:17] true, but i'd like you to first confirm it is a problem (if it my machine then thereis > no issue) > [10:17] ok > [10:18] did you ever run the JMS thing successfully? > [10:18] no > [10:18] i thik i had wrong verion of Jboss downloaded ... > [10:19] ok...I used 3.0.4 when it worked > [10:19] i have got this verion now > [10:19] and will try it > [10:19] so if the JBoss run fails and there is no simple (i.e. non code changing) fix we just > document it > [10:19] did you run JCA sample? > [10:19] no > [10:20] I'm thinking that is prolly tested only on WAS > [10:20] we should put that in docs I guess > [10:21] ok so you want to write a list of outstanding tasks before release, conditions under > which we do an RC4, etc. to summarise? > [10:21] yes - to make clear what is tested and working > [10:21] *** Hesham (~hfahmy@199.246.40.54) has joined channel #wsif > [10:21] Hi all. sorry I'm late.. got snowed in this morning :( > [10:22] i thik all is finished we jsut need to do more testing on more platforms (i check > linux) and write down in what setups (WAS, JBoss?) samples work > [10:22] hi Hesh > [10:23] Hesh I'm in Hursley, sitting here with JEremy and gang > [10:23] Hesh did you try running the JCA sample under app server other than WAS? > [10:24] no. Only WAS 5.0 > [10:24] ok, we can mention that in the docs > [10:25] shoul dwe make a separate 2.0 release document or have it as part of chnages.html? > [10:25] we will need also to prepare -email announcement message with list of what is in release > [10:25] I think separate: release notes = changes.html + summary? > [10:26] can put summary portion of release notes in email annoncement > [10:26] yes > [10:27] so could we just summarize it and see if it is OK with everybody or what is needed more? > [10:28] 1. more test ing on linux and solaris (alek) > [10:28] ok > [10:28] 2. write release summary and detaield list of how samples were tested > [10:29] is there any reason to hurry to make release tomorow instead of RC4 (that will be then > promoted to 2.0 release soon)? > [10:29] on (2) we just update existing sample docs > [10:29] that leaves more time for testing > [10:30] yes > [10:32] do you plan to cut RC4 and then cut 2.0 again? > [10:33] or is it just renaming rc4 to 2.0? > [10:33] i was thinking: 2.0 == RC4 jsut renaming > [10:33] just renaming > [10:33] ok, we'll need to make sure tags for both exist > [10:33] and are the same > [10:34] yes > [10:36] cut RC4 tomorrow and rename on Monday? > [10:37] that what i awas thining > [10:37] i.e. promote on Monday? > [10:37] yes > [10:37] is there something else that is maybe forgotten? > [10:38] or anything else related to release we should tals about? > [10:38] ok we'll cut RC4 here, sounds fine? tomorrow afternoon UK time? > [10:39] soudns fine > [10:39] sounds good to me > [10:39] should be enoiugh time to do any small chnages if needed > [10:39] And there shoulod be absolutely no change at all to RC4, only then we promote it to 2.0 > [10:40] i hope so > [10:40] (or we do RC5 ...) > [10:41] sounds ok? > [10:42] rc5 in the worst case (I hope not) > [10:42] sounds good. Hopefully no RC5.. > [10:42] that will be great to see 2.0 release real soon now :-) > [10:43] ok then, are we done? > [10:44] i will post irc log > [10:44] to encourage more people to try out RC3 > [10:44] i will also remove no longer relvant parts from RELEASE_NOTES.txt > [10:44] *** Signoff: wsif_bot (*.net *.split) > [10:44] *** Signoff: nmukhi (*.net *.split) > [10:45] ok. > [10:45] ok > [10:45] i think we had net plit > [10:45] (nirmal lost his connection and can't get back on, but says ok also) > [10:45] (and Jeremy) > [10:46] ok > [10:46] then it is officially finished (short meeeting ae good meetings :-)) > [10:46] bye > [10:46] bye > [10:46] ok talk againg later, bye > -- > "Mr. Pauli, we in the audience are all agreed that your theory is crazy. > What divides us is whether it is crazy enough to be true." Niels H. D. Bohr > >