openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprud...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 1.0 steps?
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:11:57 GMT
Michael-

On Jul 9, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Michael Dick wrote:

> Coming back for thirds?
>
> I don't have a burning desire to do another release right now, but  
> I'm happy
> to help (if I can).
>
> Two things to watch out for (some of which you probably knew  
> already) :
>
> * We should probably use the gpg maven plugin to sign all our build
> artifacts. Near the end of the release cycle for 0.9.7 I found out  
> that we
> needed to sign everything - not just the binary jars. This is  
> something I've
> been meaning to commit but I haven't gotten around to it.

I agree. I think it either hadn't been released, or had been buggy,  
when I initially put in the signing logic. I'll certainly give it a  
second try this time.


> * The process of copying a release from a staging area to the final  
> maven
> repository was a bit error prone. Jason gave me an early version of  
> the
> maven staging plugin, but after a quick google / look at the maven  
> site it
> didn't pop up. Maybe there's a better option available. If we get  
> stuck I
> still have a copy of what Jason sent me that I can get working again.

Agreed. Again, I think I had tried out the staging plugin a while  
back and couldn't get it to work quite right, but in the intervening  
time I wouldn't be surprised if they had improved it. I'll definitely  
give it another look.



> -Mike
>
> On 7/9/07, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
>>
>> Second the motion!
>>
>> You did a great job last time around, and unless someone else has a
>> burning desire to leap over the cliff with a hankie for a parachute,
>> you're it.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> We also need a release manager (a person who will do what Marc and
>> >> Mike did for 0.9.6 and 0.9.7).
>> >
>> > Unless anyone else has a desire to do the 1.0.0 release, I'll
>> > nominate myself, since I think I have a good idea about the things
>> > that need to be changed in the build process to accommodate our TLP
>> > status.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think we need to first go through the list of JIRA issues for
>> >> 0.9.8 and 1.0.0 and really think hard about whether they should be
>> >> fixed or not.
>> >>
>> >> We also need a release manager (a person who will do what Marc and
>> >> Mike did for 0.9.6 and 0.9.7).
>> >>
>> >> Maybe we should post the list of proposed deferred JIRA issues for
>> >> discussion and then move them. I like the idea of defining both a
>> >> 1.0.1 and 1.1.0 release target to which to defer issues.
>> >>
>> >> I think once there is consensus on the non-deferred issues and an
>> >> identified JIRA owner for them, the release manager can propose
>> >> when to make a branch. Once the branch is cut, fixes would have to
>> >> be made in both branch and trunk, so it's not a trivial decision.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe a wiki with a table of JIRA issues and proposed target
>> >> release and some justification (with author's name) would be
>> >> useful. It's not too hard to set up but still might not be worth
>> >> the effort.
>> >>
>> >> Craig
>> >>
>> >> On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What is remaining to get to a 1.0 release? Are there any  
>> things in
>> >>>> particular that people think are important to work on? Maybe  
>> it's
>> >>>> about time for us to create a branch for 1.0 finalization and
>> >>>> hardening.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> This probably depends on what our goal is for a 1.0 release.  If
>> >>> it's just
>> >>> to have a 1.0 release since we graduated to a TLP, then we're
>> >>> probably close
>> >>> to starting that process.  But, if we are looking for a certain
>> >>> level and
>> >>> hardness of function, then we still may have a fews things to
>> >>> clean up.  I'm
>> >>> okay with going for a 1.0 release just to have one, but I would
>> >>> then like to
>> >>> start working on defining the follow-on release (1.0.1 or 1.1).
>> >>>
>> >>> No matter what type of 1.0 release we decide to go for, maybe we
>> >>> should
>> >>> incorporate the voting mechanism within JIRA to help determine
>> >>> what Issues
>> >>> are important?  I am not totally familiar with this process, but
>> >>> it allows
>> >>> users to vote on the Issues that are most important to them.
>> >>> Each user is
>> >>> allowed a certain number of votes (to keep them from voting for
>> >>> "all"
>> >>> Issues).  We can use that as input to our selection criteria.
>> >>>
>> >>> But, before we open up for a vote, do we need some time to review
>> >>> all of the
>> >>> open Issues and assert 1.0 vs post-1.0?  Something along the
>> >>> lines of what
>> >>> Patrick did for the previous release?  I just find it kind of
>> >>> difficult to
>> >>> be working on various problems and then "ding", the timer goes
>> >>> off and we've
>> >>> cut off development for a given release.  It's probably time to
>> >>> start
>> >>> working out a candidate release cycle and content.
>> >>>
>> >>> Kevin
>> >>
>> >> Craig Russell
>> >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/ 
>> products/
>> >> jdo
>> >> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ 
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message