Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gsim@redhat.com designates
 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <53E4EC60.7070306@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:27:28 +0100
From: Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd, Registered in England and Wales under Company
 Registration No. 3798903, Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Matt Parsons
 (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Michael O'Neill (Ireland)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: 0.30 release update - alpha is available
References: 
 <CANVjZ_SUpygmim9mh0+hvqf-AjBQpTLsxGJUES60_HpVnrtmwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFitrpRbmw5yz5yg5+3VMWhu93omoWHB2D1r_2OkbFqmrfLGUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANVjZ_SnJa5XyPH6tpXMsAeVfT4hTimw=ZU8Fk_w=0QjS8_yEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFitrpS=-WpHWu2Bjn2Z8_-XNcaEEcfN1AmuNJkr9AZcQRm-Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <53E49143.2000409@redhat.com>
 <CAFitrpQ8eQR5KyHo0phZv9CAgXcY4Zi6xr90q6kdhVJXmzFoYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <53E4A792.2080904@redhat.com>
 <CAFitrpQu53OiF9jUyVCL1_6_n-aELmLGJ46=0M-P25SedRSyTA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFitrpQu53OiF9jUyVCL1_6_n-aELmLGJ46=0M-P25SedRSyTA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 08/08/2014 03:55 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> On 8 August 2014 11:33, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
>> We would need to add a specific java source bundle to that list. Would
>> there be one bundle or would e.g. the 1.0 JMS client be in its own source
>> bundle?
>>
>>
> I think for this release there should only be one, its all built as one big
> thing. We can look to split things up further at the build level if we wish
> later, and at that point start creating more source artifacts.

Sounds good.

[...]
> The Java QMF2 tools and GUI Fraser made will need an archive. They
> currently live under tools, but are not included in the archive with the
> other QMF tools.

I'd love to have that included if possible and I would commit to testing 
and voting on it if we are in a position to have a release artefact in 
time for 0.30.

[...]
> The only thing I I'd say is that the common branch and schedule might
> prove annoying if the actual items are considered independent releases,
> because some bits are usually ready before the others and any time that
> passes waiting for the sync up could probably be used to do a point release
> with the intervening bugfixes rather than always merging them or deferring
> them to the next big release as has happened previously.

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting a general process for the future, 
just a way of getting through 0.30. As far as the annoyance of things 
being ready at different times, that will be no worse for 0.30 than it 
was for 0.28 or previous releases.

I think fully independent releases would likely require at least 
distinct release branches and at least the possibility of a different 
release manager. I think that would be a good discussion to have, but I 
think it can be kept separate from what we do with 0.30, which is upon 
us already more or less.

(One of the things I think has been very good about the release process 
since Justin took over is that it is regular, pretty transparent and 
involves most of the community in some way or other. My biggest concern 
in whatever we transition to is avoiding release cycles becoming ad-hoc, 
driven solely by the lead developer(s) with little visibility into the 
planning or schedule for anyone else.)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org