db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lasse.lambre...@allianz.de
Subject Antwort: Re: OJB maintenance branch
Date Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:12:22 GMT
|         |           Brian McCallister     |
|         |           <mccallister@forthillc|
|         |           ompany.com>           |
|         |                                 |
|         |           10.11.03 16:30        |
|         |                                 |
  |        An:      "OJB Developers List" <ojb-dev@db.apache.org>                  
  |        Kopie:   Lasse Lambrecht/IS-LF1/Allianz-Leben@ALLIANZ-DE, rburt3@mchsi.com, michael.watson@estafet.com
  |        Thema:   Re: OJB maintenance branch                                           

>> 3. When we have the impression that the software in that
>> maintenance branch becomes sufficiently stable, we release
>> it as 1.0.0.  This may be done even though there are
>> minor known bugs, and it should be done this year.
> -1
> I agree with everything except "done this year." If it is stable
> for 1.0 this year, and I expect it will be, then we release it this

> year. If it isn't then we don't. I am willing to commit to busting
> butt to get things out this year but am completely against
requiring a
> release this year =)

I think a 1.0 version should be released when it is stable enough. No
matter whether that means it is ready this year or not. It will do no
good to OJB if people start to talk about the "buggy OJB".
But on the other hand, there will always be some things to fix, so it
will never be finished. And my experience is, it is hard to convince
the management for an O/R solution when it just hasn't a full version
(in terms of non beta/RC version). And that's a big point in making
OJB a widely used tool.
So to balance between these two directions seems to be the hard
decision to me.

>> 8. rburt suggests that we have a dedicated website
>> maintainer who is responsible for painting a clear
>> picture of where the project is or what is
>> outstanding as far as "issues" go.
> +1 (+10) Matt Baird and I have had a few emails discussing the
> image of OJB and this came up as a big issue.

Important point. The website is the starting point to "sell" OJB to
interested people/programmers. Especially if there is more than one
branch in future, a good overview is necessary. If you're using OJB
in a production environment you want to know what's going on with OJB
(and not by reading the source code :) . This goes hand in hand with
better documentation. (Brian :)

>> 10. At some point of time in the future we decide
>> that no further development takes place in the
>> mainenance branch.  This might be the case when
>> 1.1 or 2.0 is released.
> +0
> This only works well when there is full API and configuration
> compatibility between versions. I am not interested in maintaining
> maintenance branches down the road, though. so I suggest a general
> guideline of maintaining branches without forward API compatibility

> until there are no more bugs. If it is the *previous* release
> back port  all relevant fixes, if it is an older release branch
> document it until someone complains that it is breaking their
> (then encourage them to submit a patch ;-)

Supporting the previous release with the bugfixes as far as possible
is ok. Maintaining older releases should only be done by the website
maintainer or whoever is responsible for the website.
In my opinion the API compatibility seems less important as soon as
the JDO support is complete. Even if at the moment most people use
the PB-API.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org

View raw message