incubator-odf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Source code checked in, what next?
Date Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:00:18 GMT
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> wrote:
> I was thinking it would be painful to change classpaths on folks, but maybe not of the domain name is to be abandoned.

It will cause consumers to adapt their import statements.  Most modern
IDE's will automate this, but when we update it will require that
users make some changes.

> I suppose if you are changing your JRE/JDK dependencies, it might not matter.

Heck, we might want to bundle all of our larger/breaking changes in
one release.  Stretching these changes over several releases is very
annoying for users.

> Is there any meaningful redirection or are people simply going to find old artifacts
until the site disappears?

We've moved the old releases to Apache-extra.  Source code has been
migrated.  Bugzilla is being worked on by infrastructure.  All of the
website pages have been migrated already.  But I'd like to keep ODF
Toolkit website up until we've done the initial IP review.  This will
help (I would guess) Oracle write up their SGA, since they could
verify that the files at Apache originated at the ODF Toolkit Union.
This would also help in case we need to go back to the original Hg
repository to verify something.

But once we've completed the audit, I think we can send out a final
set of reminder notes to the ODF Toolkit Union mailing lists and then
redirect the domain.  I don't think it is worth attempting any kind of
fine-grained redirection.  I'd suggest redirecting all
HTTP requests to our Apache home page.  I don't think we had many deep

>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Svante Schubert []
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 12:08
> To:
> Subject: Re: Source code checked in, what next?
> Am 13.09.2011 00:18, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> We should think about what we want to put in our first release,
>> whether we want to consolidate the work we already have and do a quick
>> release (say in 4 weeks) or whether we want to do something more
>> ambitious.
> I would favor to do a quick release without new features. Allowing us to
> focus on adapting the new Apache processes and to setup the required
> documentation.
> I assume when we do an Apache release we need to change the Java package
> names as well from to What are the Apache
> rules here?
> As we know that we will be using JDK 6 for the next encryption and
> signature update, we should save time by dropping the tests for EOL JDK
> 5, switch now to JDK 6 and adapt the pom.xml(s) accordingly.
> Regards,
> Svante

View raw message