cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Distributed OSGi release on next tuesday?
Date Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:53:23 GMT

On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> On 20.06.2013 15:35, A. Rothman wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I finished fixing all the major bugs I've come across in the past couple of months.
Code review and some more testing by others would be greatly appreciated - I'm sure there's
room for improvement, but that's hard to do without feedback.
>> 
>> A few things remain on my todo list, none of them blockers (mostly cleanup):
>> 
>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DOSGI-108 - awaiting verdict (cschneider/dkulp?)
> I commented in the issue. As a summary I would prefer keeping the comma separated config
for now.
>> 
>> 2. Upgrading dependencies (and specifically https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DOSGI-191)
- what is the policy on this? When do all the dependencies get upgraded?
>> 
> Basically the dependency upgrades should match the kind of version we release. For a
bugfix release there should only be bugfix upgrades for a minor release  bugfix or minor upgrades...
So I propose we upgrade to 3.3.2. We can also upgrade to 3.4.0 but as the release is planned
quite soon I prefer the smaller upgrade. If you want to upgrade dependencies create an issue
for it and if it may have big impact it makes sense to discuss on the list.
> 
> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DOSGI-192 to track this.

I thought we are discussing a 1.5.0 release which would be a minor release, not a patch/bugfix
release.  In that case, a zookeeper version upgrade would be fine.

Dan

>> 3. Refactoring to create utils module (still awaiting response to the mail from a
few days ago)
> I would prefer to wait with this till the next release.
>> 
>> 4.  Split zookeeper discovery into listening/publishing subpackages
> Looks like a smaller change so I agree we can do this for 1.5.0. Can you create an issue
and do the change if you have time?
>> 
>> 5. Standardizing variable names to make the code more consistent and readable
> This sounds like a bigger change. At least it may affect a lot of code. Can you propose
a new naming scheme on the list?
>> 
>> I can probably do them all in time, but would like to hear feedback if anyone is
for/against them or has better ideas before I proceed.
>> 
>> Finally, among the 34 unresolved issues, there seem to be a bunch related to distribution/deployment,
possibly several are no longer relevant (e.g. single-bundle stuff). If anyone can sift through
them and close the low hanging fruit (at least) that would be nice.
> I regularly go through the issues and ask for feedback. I then close them if there is
no feedback after some time. Of course anyone feel free to do the same.
> 
> Christian
> 
> -- 
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
> 
> Open Source Architect
> http://www.talend.com
> 

-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com


Mime
View raw message