river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Creswell <dan.cresw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next steps after 2.2.1 release
Date Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:58:50 GMT
Peter,

I shall remind you of your statement elsewhere about behaviour in public.
Dude, I know you're a much better person that the below suggests.

Perhaps you wrote it in anger or frustration or fatigue or some
combination. Nevertheless it doesn't come off well and would point at you
needing to do just as much development of leadership skills as you assert
is required for Greg.

Trust has to be earned just as much as granted. It starts from respect and
quality dialogue.

On 7 April 2013 22:54, Peter <jini@zeus.net.au> wrote:

> Greg, why have you repeated this message?
>
> I think this is a deliberate attack on the project because you haven't
> been following development in trunk and now you're scared because you see
> changes you don't understand.
>
> I've been following your developments in surrogates, an impressive amount
> of productivity.  Although I think you should consider upgrading
> apache.commons vfs to version 2 before releasing.
>
> Open your mind and ask questions, the code isn't set in stone, you have an
> obligation as project lead to encourage and nurture development, not stifle
> it.
>
> You strike me as someone who's a very good programmer, but still learning
> leadership because you lack faith in others and must do everything
> yourself.  Remember I offered to assist with Surrogates, but you wanted to
> work alone?
>
> You need to let go and give others a go too.
>
> How you handle this matter will be a test for your own personal
> development and an opportunity to grow as a leader.
>
> You also hold the future of this project in your hands, so I hope you find
> strength to let go.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter.
>
> ----- Original message -----
> >
> > OK, so in my last message I talked about how (speaking only for myself)
> I'm a
> > little nervous about the state of the trunk.
> >
> > So what now?
> >
> > Problems we need to avoid in this discussion:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > - Conflation of source tree structure issues with build tool selection.
> > - Conflation of Maven build, Maven as codebase provider (artifact urls),
> and
> > posting artifacts to Maven Central - Wish lists of pet features
> > - Bruised egos and personal criticisms.
> >
> > Issues I see, in no particular order:
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > - We've done changes both to the test framework and the code, and lots
> of them.
> > We should do one or the other, or small amounts of coevolution, if
> absolutely
> > necessary. - Really, I'd like to see a completely separate integration
> test, and
> > have the TCK tests separated out again. - The source tree is
> incomprehensible -
> > The tests appear to be awfully sensitive to their environment.  Insofar
> as when
> > I run them locally on an untouched source tree, I get 280 failures. -
> There have
> > been changes to class loading and security subsystems.  These subsystems
> are
> > core to Jini, and the changes were made to the existing source, so
> there's no
> > way to "opt-out" of the changes.  I'd like to see radical changes be
> optional
> > until proven in the field, where possible.  In the case of policy
> providers and
> > class loaders, that should be easy to do. - Similarly, it seems there
> have been
> > some changes to the JERI framework. - There are ".jar" files in our
> repository.
> > I'll stipulate that the licensing has been checked, but it smells bad.
> >
> > Discussion
> > -----------------
> > I guess the biggest thing I'd like to see is stability in the test
> framework.
> > Perhaps it needs refactoring or reorganization, but if so, we need to be
> very
> > careful to separate it from changes to the core functionality.
> >
> > Next, I'd like for it to be easier to comprehend the source tree.  I
> think a
> > good way to do that is to separate out (carefully) the core Jini package
> > (basically the contents of jsk-platform.jar) and the service
> implementations.
> > There's no reason that we have to have one huge
> everything-but-the-kitchen-sink
> > distribution.  That's just a holdover from how Sun structured the JTSK -
> It was
> > literally a "starter kit".  To me it would be fine to have separate
> deliverables
> > for the platform and the services.
> >
> > While we're separating out the services, it might also be a decent time
> to
> > implement Maven-based builds if we think that's a good idea.  I'd start
> with
> > Reggie.  It would also be a good time to get rid of the "com.sun.jini"
> packages.
> >
> > Aside:  I'm personally ambivalent on Maven (which is to say I'm nowhere
> near as
> > negative on it as I once was).  I do agree with Dennis, though, that the
> jars
> > and appropriate poms need to be published to Maven Central.  There's no
> doubt
> > that users will appreciate that.
> >
> > Once we have a stable set of regression tests, then OK, we could think
> about
> > improving performance or using Maven repositories as the codebase server.
> >
> > I realize this won't be popular, but my gut feel is that we need to step
> back to
> > the 2.2 branch and retrace our steps a little, and go through the
> evolution
> > again in a more measured fashion.
> >
> > Proposal
> > ------------
> >
> > 1 - Release version 2.2.1 from the 2.2 branch.
> > 2 - Create a separate source tree for the test framework.  This could
> come from
> > the "qa_refactor" branch, but the goal should be to successfully test
> the 2.2.1
> > release.  Plus it should be a no-brainer to pull it down and run it on a
> local
> > machine. 3 - Release 2.2.2 from the pruned jtsk tree.  Release 1.0.0 of
> the test
> > framework. 4 - Pull out the infrastructure service implementations
> (Reggie,
> > Outrigger, Norm, etc) from the core into separate products.  Release
> 1.0.0 on
> > each of them.  Release 2.2.3 from the pruned jtsk tree. 5 - Adopt a fixed
> > release cycle.  Not sure if it should be quarterly or biennial, or
> whether it
> > should be all products at once or staggered releases.  We'll need to
> discuss. 6
> > - Then we can start making changes if necessary to the individual
> products.  And
> > also try to deal with making it easier for new users to use the
> technology.
> >
> > So there you go.  Opinions?
> >
> > Greg Trasuk.
> >
>
>

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