incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mosur Ravi, Balaji" <>
Subject RE: M2 Release (was: Rules for a release vote.)
Date Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:29:37 GMT
Looks like I cannot attach a patch...


We need to also clean up JIRA issues marked for M2 release.



From: Mosur Ravi, Balaji [] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:21 PM
Subject: RE: M2 Release (was: Rules for a release vote.)


With the patch this time....





From: Mosur Ravi, Balaji [] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:14 PM
Subject: RE: M2 Release (was: Rules for a release vote.)




I have attached the patch that contains the fixes needed to release just
the core orb part of yoko using profiles.

So, when run with the profile runtime(mvn -Pruntime) it will build only
the core, spec & rmi modules. It will leave out the api,
bindings & tools modules. But by default, everything would be built.

And when building the distribution, again when using profile runtime, a
runtime binary assembly will be included. The src assembly remains the

After the M2 release, we will get rid of the profiles & retain only the
runtime binary assembly part.

The reason for doing this is purely to help out Geronimo because cxf at
this point is not stable, so we cannot release the complete yoko because
parts of it are dependent on CXF.

I am against splitting yoko in to 2 projects because i think the ORB is
stable and we could built the tools & WS-bindings around it to keep the
yoko project moving forward. This is where i see most of the development

Once M2 goes out of the door, we would add bindings & api modules to the
runtime assembly, so that we have a clean separation of tools & runtime.

Do we need to start a vote on this or are we all in agreement?

I will commit the patch once we are in agreement.



-----Original Message-----
From: Nolan, Edell []
Sent: Tue 2/20/2007 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: Rules for a release vote.


Thanks - will try and take a look at the assemblies and profiles.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick McGuire []
Sent: 20 February 2007 17:52
Subject: Re: Rules for a release vote.

Just take a look at all of the release elements of Geronimo.  Geronimo
includes a large number of spec artifacts, each of which is release
separately.  It contains javamail transport/store implementations that
are released both as an artifact in it's own right and bundled with the
javamail api spec jar so there's one unified mail solution.  There's an
xbean component, which is also released as it's own entity.  Even the
Geronimo server gets released as multiple assemblies, based upon
different profiles of components (minimal, tomcat, jetty, etc.).


Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2007 12:03, Nolan, Edell wrote:
>> But surely Yoko should be considered as a whole.
>> Is it the practice of other Apache projects that they release
>> Different modules for different releases.
> Actually, yes.   Several projects do that.   Releasing tuscany is a
> It's a release of the "buildtools" stuff, a release of the specs, a
> of sdo, release of the core, etc....    All are separate releases.
> any projects that has multiple languages usually release each language

> separately.
> IMO, the stuff Rick is doing to create the "embedded" distribution is
a good
> thing (although I think I would have gone the profile route).    Long
term, I
> feel having that is good for the project no matter what the releases
> look like in the short term.
> Short term: I'm fundamentally against releasing anything based on
> snapshot dependencies whether or not we tag them for reproducibility
> or not.  (I now pretty much -1 releases that have snapshot
dependencies since the resulting
> artifacts will be useless in the maven repositories.)   The CXF
project has
> said the stuff is not "stable" and thus I really don't like the idea
> shipping it.    However, I recognize that Geronimo needs a release of
> core stuff (and I assume Harmony would as well) and as community
> thing, I'd like to provide them with that.   Thus, I would say
releasing the
> embedded stuff for them (that doesn't have the snapshot dependencies)
> is good for the project and for the community.
> Anyway, I'm not a yoko committer and thus don't have any binding
> votes, but that's my opinion.
> Dan
>> Edell.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alan D. Cabrera []
>> Sent: 20 February 2007 16:45
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Rules for a release vote.
>> On Feb 20, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Mosur Ravi, Balaji wrote:
>>> I think in another discussion, there was a talk about not releasing
>>> yoko with just the ORB. (I don't think we reached any consensus!!!)
>> I don't recall this.  Could you find a Nabble reference?
>> IMO, we should not force users to drag in a WS adapter.
>> Regards,
>> Alan

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