harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Xiao-Feng Li" <xiaofeng...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] M3 milestone discussion
Date Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:53:01 GMT
I personally somehow concur with Salikh's opinion. As Tim mentioned,
"the problems with getting a JCK license to certify official releases
have been well-documented". We have to face the situation, and we
probably want to start releasing "official" Harmony with a new and
formal and stable versioning scheme till we get a certified version
released. It can be started from 0.1, for example, or something like

The official release can have a little longer release cycle, say, 3
months, to give us more time to enhance Harmony in both robustness,
performance and new features, i.e., to make it worth a release. I
really think it's time to consider providing Harmony package to
various Linux distributions. If we think it's  not mature enough for
distribution packages, we can call it 0.1alpha.


On 8/23/07, Salikh Zakirov <salikh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
> > Agreed, and the problems with getting a JCK license to certify official
> > releases have been well-documented.  We want to release a Java
> > implementation, not something that is not quite Java.
> Somehow I cannot understand how the "official" status of the release
> is related to the "certification with JCK" status.
> I understand the desire of releasing certified 1.0 (or is it 5.0?)
> version, however, I cannot see why alpha or beta releases should
> not be done before JCK certification.
> Careful reading of Apache licensing policy [1] says that this is the
> sort of decision done by PMC. However, it also says that anything
> with non-released status should not be advertised outside of the mailing
> list (i.e. on the web site), and therefore, should not be packaged
> for end-users (i.e. Debian or Gentoo packages).
> Thus, I understand what you are saying as "we should not yet advertise ourselves
> outside of our mailing list". This is exactly opposite of my opinion, that
> Harmony project need to start recruiting beta-testers (alpha-testers?)
> in a wider audience.
> This is also in contradiction with the fact of stable builds being announced
> on the web site.
> What I am suggesting, is
> (1) come up with a stable versioning scheme (FWIW, M1 has happened to DRLVM twice already),
> (2) decide if the current status is alpha or beta
> (3) release the next stable snapshot officially (following all the requirements [1])
>     with either of alpha and beta status
>     and all necessary notices about non-compatibility and non-certified status.
> (4) remove the "they are not official releases of the Apache Harmony project" notices
>     from the download page.
> (5) and finally, encourage (rather than discourage) including these alpha releases
>     to "unstable" areas of the popular Linux distributions
> PMC may as well disagree with this suggestion, but it would be nice to hear where exactly
> disagreement lies:
> (a) if Harmony project should not seek for a wider tester base?
> (b) if Harmony project should not encourage packaging for distributions?
> (c) if Harmony project should not do uncertified alpha and beta releases?
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
> quote from Apache Releases FAQ [1]
> > During the process of developing software and preparing a release,
> > various packages are made available to the developer community for testing purposes.
> > Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers
> > to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other
> > similar package. The only people who are supposed to know about such packages are
> > the people following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus aware
> > of the conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general public
> > are downloading such test packages, then remove them.


View raw message