incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nolan, Edell" <Edell.No...@iona.com>
Subject RE: Rules for a release vote.
Date Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:57:52 GMT
Hi,

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

Edell. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick McGuire [mailto:rickmcg@gmail.com] 
Sent: 20 February 2007 17:52
To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
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.).

Rick

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
pain.   
> It's a release of the "buildtools" stuff, a release of the specs, a
release 
> of sdo, release of the core, etc....    All are separate releases.
Also, 
> 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
of 
> shipping it.    However, I recognize that Geronimo needs a release of
the 
> core stuff (and I assume Harmony would as well) and as community
building 
> 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 [mailto:list@toolazydogs.com]
>> Sent: 20 February 2007 16:45
>> To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> 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
>>     
>
>   


Mime
View raw message