incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Darren Middleman" <dmiddle...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Request for creating the M2 release.
Date Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:45:27 GMT
Hi,

I would be more in favour of releasing a M2 release than a full
1.0release.  Yoko is supposed
to be more than just an ORB and I think that our 1.0 release should reflect
this.  As Edell
mentioned, in the time it could take us to get the documentation for the ORB
together for a
1.0 release, we should be able to get the tools and binding to a stable
state.

Cheers,
Darren


On 2/16/07, Nolan, Edell <Edell.Nolan@iona.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to see us release all modules together.  I think to do a
> proper release of the Orb we definitley need some more documentation and
> while this is being worked on we can get the tools and bindings stable
> so they also can be released.
>
> Edell.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mosur Ravi, Balaji [mailto:bravi@iona.com]
> Sent: 16 February 2007 16:19
> To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Request for creating the M2 release.
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am bit undecided here...
>
>
>
> We can do a 1.0 release with just the ORB core & then when CXF has done
> its final release, then we can release the corba binding & tools module.
> (This might be more work because currently we distribute everything!!!).
> The binary release would just include the ORB & the Source release would
> include all the modules.
>
>
>
> Would this be acceptable? We still don't have documentation of the ORB,
> so releasing would make it not much usable.
>
>
>
> Any other ideas?
>
>
>
> I am also open to just releasing a M2 release, this would give us more
> time to finish off documentation & include all the modules of yoko.
>
>
>
> - Balaji
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Hogstrom [mailto:matt@hogstrom.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:48 AM
> To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request for creating the M2 release.
>
>
>
> I know Dain is looking for a 1.0 release for Geronimo and I'm
>
> interested in any kind of release for our next Milestone.  It would
>
> help out your brothers in Geronimo land greatly if at a minimum you
>
> could cut a milestone in the next few days based on Rick's progress.
>
> It would be even sweeter if Geronimo 1.2 went out with a released
>
> version of Yoko at 1.0.
>
>
>
> Don't fall into the Geronimo trap of waiting for things to be perfect
>
> to make a release.  You have a stable release that has been used in
>
> TCKing Geronimo and that is a huge thing.  Put out the 1.0 now, work
>
> on web services piece for CXF and release a 1.1.  It helps keep
>
> people interested when the release train keeps moving.  Also,
>
> releasing software is a demonstrable action of the community that
>
> shows its working together, technically vibrant and administering
>
> oversight in the more mundane things like releasing software.
>
>
>
> Anyway, my 2c.
>
>
>
> So, if you could release a 1.0 in the next few days awesome...a
>
> Milestone in the next few days...most excellent.  Planning for
>
> greater things is interesting and necessary but your user community
>
> is humbly asking for a release; pretty please with sugar on top :)
>
>
>
> On Feb 8, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>
>
> > Geronimo has made great progress on the TCK using Yoko, and we're
>
> > starting to put things together for 1.2 release.  For the 1.2 Beta
>
> > release Geronimo shipped with an interim snapshot version, but for
>
> > the final 1.2 release, we'd like to use an actual release version.
>
> > Can we get the process started to ship an M2 release?  And more
>
> > importantly, can we get it released in a more timely fashion than
>
> > was done for the M1 release?
>
> >
>
> > Rick
>
> >
>
>
>
>

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