deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <john.d.am...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Heading towards a 0.4 release
Date Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:30:28 GMT
Let's try to avoid procedural issues in this thread.

I'll update some more of the issues this morning.


On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Gerhard Petracek <
gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:

> @ "...everyone is free to just add a feature branch...":
> imo we should keep [1] for single features. otherwise we end up with 100+
> branches and we can't drop a single one later on (if it would be needed)...
> however, we also have to think about an approach for v1+
> -> i would suggest to add >new modules< via (feature-)branches once we
> agreed to add them to deltaspike (in a [discuss]-thread on the dev-list).
> once a module is stable enough to get part of the next release, we can
> merge its branch into the master.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1]
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/deltaspike/suggested-git-workflows.html#contribution-workflow
>
>
>
> 2013/3/27 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
>
> > yup please later than 0.4.
> > I'd say we call a feature freeze until we ship 0.4 (hopefully next week)
> > and focus on
> >
> > * JSF
> > * JPA
> > * Security
> >
> > After that we can add new features to the master branch.
> >
> > Of course, everyone is free to just add a feature branch for a new
> feature
> > which is outside those areas.
> >
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Jason Porter <lightguard.jp@gmail.com>
> > > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Heading towards a 0.4 release
> > >
> > >T he last time I asked about it the responses seemed lukewarm, so I
> > figured it
> > > wasn't something people really cared about. We could certainly add it
> in
> > > post 0.4 if there really is a desire for it.
> > > —
> > > Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:23 AM, John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>  Jason,
> > >>  Does that mean we are no longer bringing XML config to DeltaSpike,
> even
> > >>  though it was already voted in?
> > >>  On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Jason Porter
> > > <lightguard.jp@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>>  Wrt xml-config, I'll be working on configuring cdi via osgi
> > > blueprint,
> > >>>  over in the Aries project. If we want to port over the seam config
> > > stuff,
> > >>>  we can certainly do that too.
> > >>>  —
> > >>>  Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
> > >>>
> > >>>  On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >>>  >
> > >>>  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>  > @Gerhard: the point about proxy was i thought it was not straight
> > > forward
> > >>>  > since some people will not want to bring any additional lib for
it
> > >>>  (because
> > >>>  > they use only interfaces and proxy libs can conflcts). Wonder
if
> > > handling
> > >>>  > it with a dep optional couldn't do the trick too.
> > >>>  > *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> > >>>  > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
> > >>>  > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<
> > >>>  http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
> > >>>  > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
> > >>>  > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
> > >>>  > 2013/3/26 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> > >>>  >> @ romain:
> > >>>  >> imo it doesn't make sense to remove something (and add it
> > > later on
> > >>>  again),
> > >>>  >> if it's just a matter of few hours (to do it immediately).
> > >>>  >> anybody is welcome to work on DS-333.
> > >>>  >>
> > >>>  >> @ DS-288
> > >>>  >> it's almost done and as i mentioned earlier i'll
> > > finish it once DS-289
> > >>>  is
> > >>>  >> done.
> > >>>  >> (yes we need it for 0.4)
> > >>>  >>
> > >>>  >> @ xml-config
> > >>>  >> afair we had an agreement already, but nobody worked on it.
> > >>>  >>
> > >>>  >> regards,
> > >>>  >> gerhard
> > >>>  >>
> > >>>  >>
> > >>>  >>
> > >>>  >> 2013/3/26 John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> > >>>  >>
> > >>>  >> > I think leaving proxy support to full interface only
for
> > > now makes
> > >>>  sense,
> > >>>  >> > we can enrich this further in another release.  How
about
> > > we close 113
> > >>>  >> as a
> > >>>  >> > reduced scope and open a new issue for remaining items?
> > > I see you
> > >>>  >> already
> > >>>  >> > did some Gerhard, but we still have abstract classes
as a
> > > case as
> > >>>  well.
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >> > Gerhard, can you also comment on 288? Do we need this
in
> > > 0.4 or can it
> > >>>  >> > wait?
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >> > Romain, I didn't quite get you.  Are you saying
> > > you're on hold on this
> > >>>  >> one
> > >>>  >> > (dependent on something?).
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >> > Does anyone believe we need Seam XML Config in 0.4?
> > > (DS-269 to 272).
> > >>>   I'd
> > >>>  >> > prefer to move it.
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >> > For DS-105, it looks like consensus is to keep it since
> > > it's needed
> > >>>  for
> > >>>  >> > older Weld versions. If so can we close as will not
fix?
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >> > Jason P - Can you look at DS-132/134? Do we need these?
> > > There are
> > >>>  other
> > >>>  >> > catch like issues out there.  Are they needed?
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >> > Mark S - You have 12 issues assigned to you :/
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >> > BTW I created a new filter - only open issues [1]
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >> > John
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >> > [1]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12323789
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >>>  >> > <rmannibucau@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >> > > Hi
> > >>>  >> > >
> > >>>  >> > > DS-60: we are a bunch o wait after it
> > >>>  >> > >
> > >>>  >> > > DS-113: think we can push partial bean to another
> > > release and keep
> > >>>  >> > > interface handling for this iteration (well if
you
> > > import asm part
> > >>>  >> right
> > >>>  >> > > now it can work but then the question will be which
> > > shade version? a
> > >>>  >> > proxy
> > >>>  >> > > as in cxf?....)
> > >>>  >> > >
> > >>>  >> > > other are not blocker IMO
> > >>>  >> > >
> > >>>  >> > >
> > >>>  >> > > *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> > >>>  >> > > *Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > > <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
> > >>>  >> > > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<
> > >>>  >> > > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
> > >>>  >> > > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
> > >>>  >> > > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
> > >>>  >> > >
> > >>>  >> > >
> > >>>  >> > >
> > >>>  >> > > 2013/3/25 Gerhard Petracek
> > > <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> > >>>  >> > >
> > >>>  >> > > > hi john,
> > >>>  >> > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > @ examples:
> > >>>  >> > > > we haven't discussed what our goal is here
> > >>>  >> > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > @ DS-60
> > >>>  >> > > > imo we should do it for 0.5 (and release 0.5
> > >> short< after 0.4)
> > >>>  >> > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > @ DS-113
> > >>>  >> > > > we have to change the proxy-lib and move it
to
> > > an own module
> > >>>  >> > > > (i'll create the module today)
> > >>>  >> > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > @ DS-263
> > >>>  >> > > > not needed, but nice to have -> +1
> > >>>  >> > > > (you can have a look at the setup we used
in
> > > codi for it to know
> > >>>  what
> > >>>  >> > you
> > >>>  >> > > > need)
> > >>>  >> > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > @ DS-278
> > >>>  >> > > > i re-opened it because we should find a better
> > > approach imo.
> > >>>  >> > > > however, it isn't a real blocker
> > >>>  >> > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > regards,
> > >>>  >> > > > gerhard
> > >>>  >> > > >
> > >>>  >> > > >
> > >>>  >> > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > 2013/3/25 John D. Ament
> > > <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> > >>>  >> > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > > All,
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > > Based on the flurry of threads, I wanted
> > > to help get things
> > >>>  started
> > >>>  >> > to
> > >>>  >> > > > move
> > >>>  >> > > > > towards a 0.4 release.  I created the
> > > filter at [1] to show our
> > >>>  >> > current
> > >>>  >> > > > > progress.
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > > We currently have 50 issues fixed in
0.4,
> > > with 27 unresolved for
> > >>>  >> the
> > >>>  >> > > > > release.  Some of these issues stick
out,
> > > with me thinking that
> > >>>  >> we've
> > >>>  >> > > > > actually completed them but perhaps need
> > > some finalization
> > >>>  (note:
> > >>>  >> > I'll
> > >>>  >> > > > use
> > >>>  >> > > > > the abbreviation DS for the DELTASPIKE
key
> > > in JIRA which is
> > >>>  TL;DR)
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > > DS-306 - I see examples.  Do we need
more?
> > >>>  >> > > > > DS-60 - I believe we have started
> > > integrating CDI Query.  Should
> > >>>  >> this
> > >>>  >> > > > have
> > >>>  >> > > > > spawned child tasks?
> > >>>  >> > > > > DS-113 - Gerhard took the reigns on this
> > > one and apparently it
> > >>>  >> works
> > >>>  >> > > just
> > >>>  >> > > > > like the Seam3 version.  Can this be
> > > closed?
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > > Some low hanging fruit:
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > > DS-263 - I was actually looking for
> > > something like this as well.
> > >>>  >> >  I've
> > >>>  >> > > > been
> > >>>  >> > > > > playing with JBoss modules a lot and
think
> > > having a binary
> > >>>  release
> > >>>  >> > > would
> > >>>  >> > > > > help add DS as a JBoss Module.  If this
> > > isn't complete, do we
> > >>>  need
> > >>>  >> it
> > >>>  >> > > in
> > >>>  >> > > > > 0.4?
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > > DS-278 - If not done, seems easy enough
to
> > > add.
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > > DS-288 - Seems like another needed
> > > feature, but wasn't too
> > >>>  >> difficult
> > >>>  >> > in
> > >>>  >> > > > > either CODI or Seam3.
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > > DS-289 - Ironically, this one isn't
> > > even scheduled for 0.4 but
> > >>>  is a
> > >>>  >> > > > blocker
> > >>>  >> > > > > for the release.  I'll update it as
> > > such.
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > > If you have something in the list below
> > > that shouldn't be (e.g.
> > >>>  >> it's
> > >>>  >> > > not
> > >>>  >> > > > > needed for 0.4) we should get it
> > > rescheduled.  Since previously
> > >>>  >> only
> > >>>  >> > > 289
> > >>>  >> > > > > was declared needed for 0.4 we should
be
> > > looking at everything
> > >>>  >> else.
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > > John
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > > > [1]:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12323788
> > >>>  >> > > > >
> > >>>  >> > > >
> > >>>  >> > >
> > >>>  >> >
> > >>>  >>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message