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 Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:04:39 GMT
On 8/27/07, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> Salikh Zakirov 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.
>
> The 'official' goal of the project is to create Java SE, and the only
> way to do that is to pass the corresponding JCK.
>
> > 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.
>
> When we pass the JCK for 5.0 we can call the result Java SE 5.0, we
> wouldn't use 1.0.

Tim,

It's Java SE 5.0, but it's not necessarily Harmony 5.0. I see no
problem to call it Harmony 1.0 (or else) when it passes JCK for 5.0.

As a software project, I think Harmony deserves its own versioning
scheme. It it a little bit uncomfortable to see M3, M4, ..., M100,
then see a 5.0. Current Mx naming scheme is hard to get an impression
on the project status.

Thanks,
xiaofeng

> We are producing builds milestone towards that goal, but the
> certification is all or nothing.
>
> > Careful reading of Apache licensing policy [1] says that this is the
> > sort of decision done by PMC.
>
> The PMC are all on this list, though with summer vacations etc. things
> are quiet.
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree that we should be recruiting further testers and early adopters.
>  They are most likely to be developers on other significant Java
> projects, and in fairness we have been very responsive to them.  Feel
> free to try some apps and discuss the results.
>
> > This is also in contradiction with the fact of stable builds being announced
> > on the web site.
>
> <shrug/> We have enough warnings and caveats on there.
>
> > What I am suggesting, is
> > (1) come up with a stable versioning scheme (FWIW, M1 has happened to DRLVM twice
already),
>
> It did?
>
> > (2) decide if the current status is alpha or beta
>
> Alpha or beta towards what?  We cal them development snapshots which is
> what they are.
>
> > (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
>
> That's a proposal to bring into a wider forum (e.g. jcp-open@) since you
> are suggesting that the ASF endorse a Java look-alike runtime.  The
> ASF/Sun/JCP discussions are attempting to resolve whether we Sun will
> honor their promise to provide a suitable license.
>
> > PMC may as well disagree with this suggestion, but it would be nice to hear where
exactly
> > disagreement lies:
>
> You may get more responses as people catch-up with their mail...
>
> > (a) if Harmony project should not seek for a wider tester base?
>
> I think we should, and we are.
>
> > (b) if Harmony project should not encourage packaging for distributions?
>
> again, we should and we are,
>
> > (c) if Harmony project should not do uncertified alpha and beta releases?
>
> we have the stable milestones for testing and early adopters.  As above,
> I don't know how you would declare alpha or beta status against a set of
> criteria we don't have access to at the moment.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> > [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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


-- 
http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com

Mime
View raw message