beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carlin Rogers" <carlin.rog...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: a new patch release [was: Re: Question about the next release...]
Date Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:16:20 GMT
Eddie,

Yes, that helps. Thanks for the reply as well as the feedback on my
earlier questions about the docs.

Carlin

On 11/3/06, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carlin--
>
>    Seems like that change should be removed as well because it was a
> step along the way to the partial data set support in trunk.  The
> PagedDataSet class changed more from that SVN version.
>
>   Probably best to go back to before that work started.
>
> HTH.
> Eddie
>
>
> On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <carlin.rogers@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Eddie,
> >
> > I have another question about pulling the incomplete data grid
> > features from the branch. I should remove the "checkpoint work" you
> > did in the PagedDataSet class, etc. from revision 415150,
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-commits/200606.mbox/%3c20060618155232.DB13A1A983A@eris.apache.org%3e
> > as well as the work in revision 431515, right? Or, did you want me to
> > leave that in?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Carlin
> >
> > On 11/2/06, Carlin Rogers <carlin.rogers@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey Eddie,
> > >
> > > I've made the initial branch and updated several reference of the
> > > release version number to 1.0.2. However, I have a couple of questions
> > > about some other files...
> > >
> > > - doap_Beehive.rdf -   I have not yet modified the DOAP. Do we just
> > > modify <revision> field and update the <created> field when we
roll
> > > out the release, or just the version in trunk? Do we need to remove
> > > some of the references to WSM in this file or clarify that it is a
> > > subproject?
> > >
> > > - docs/maven-support.txt -   is this just a readme text file and
> > > should I update the versions at the bottom of the doc?
> > >
> > > - POMs -     looks like these use a property for the beehive version, correct?
> > >
> > > I haven't made any changes in beehive/site/... yet. I guess we wait
> > > until the release to update these.
> > >
> > > I'll start the work to remove incomplete data grid features in branch.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help.
> > > Carlin
> > >
> > > On 10/24/06, Carlin Rogers <carlin.rogers@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Excellent and thanks Eddie. After Wednesday sounds fine. I'm also
> > > > happy to help if that makes it easier for you.
> > > >
> > > > Your idea of including the LICENSE file in all the jars sounds good as
well.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Carlin
> > > >
> > > > On 10/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >   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