river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bryan Thompson <br...@systap.com>
Subject Re: New Chair for Apache River PMC
Date Tue, 13 May 2014 17:37:47 GMT
+1

> On May 13, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Gregg Wonderly <gergg@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> We might want to separate the two paths from a release perspective.
> 
> The namespace changes should happen on a major numbered release.  The build change might
be better targeted at 3.1?
> 
> Just my thoughts on making things happen sooner with smaller overall number of issues
that might then occur and need fixes.  
> 
> If 3.0 is too volatile, that won't be good!
> 
> Gregg
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On May 13, 2014, at 6:10 AM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.reedy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I think also need to decide if qa_refactor does become defacto 3.0, do we
>> do the following:
>> 
>> Change the com.sun.jini namespace to org.apache.river
>> Change the com.artima namespace to org.apache.river
>> Move to a Maven project and decide on module group and artifact ids
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Dennis
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Bryan Thompson <bryan@systap.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Why don't we do a pre-release from this branch?  Does apache support this
>>> concept?  Give it some time in the wild to shake down the bugs?
>>> 
>>> If not. Let's just release it and document that there is a lot of churn.
>>> Give it a 3.0 designation and be prepared to release a series of updates
>>> as bugs are identified.  The key would be API stability so people could try
>>> it and roll back as necessary for production deployments onto a known good
>>> code base.
>>> 
>>> Bryan
>>> 
>>>>> On May 13, 2014, at 3:18 AM, Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 13/05/2014 9:59 AM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
>>>>> Apologies for not chiming in earlier, I've been running around with my
>>> air
>>>>> on fire for the past couple of weeks. As to whether River is dead, I
>>> don't
>>>>> think it is, maybe mostly dead (in which case a visit to Miracle Max
>>> may be
>>>>> in order). I think River is static, but not dead. The technology is so
>>>>> worth at least maintaining, fixing bugs and continued care and feeding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The issue to me is that the project has no direction, and River has no
>>>>> community that participates and makes decisions as a community. There
>>> has
>>>>> been tons of work in qa_refactor, is that the future for River? Or is
>>> it a
>>>>> fork?
>>>> 
>>>> There are develpers who are concerned about the number of fixes made in
>>> qa-refactor, but no one yet has identified an issue I haven't been able to
>>> fix very quickly.  In any case the public api and serial form is backward
>>> compatible.
>>>> 
>>>> I encourage the community to test it, find out for themselves and report
>>> any issues.
>>>> 
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dennis
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Greg Trasuk<trasukg@stratuscom.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On May 11, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Peter<jini@zeus.net.au> 
wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ultimately, if community involvement continues to decline, we
may have
>>>>>> to send River to the attic.
>>>>>>> Distributed computing is difficult and we often bump into the
>>>>>> shortcomings of the java platform, I think these difficulties are
why
>>>>>> developers have trouble agreeing on solutions.
>>>>>>> But I think more importantly we need increased user involvement.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Is there any advise or resources we can draw on from other Apache
>>>>>> projects?
>>>>>> It may be, ultimately, that the community has failed and River is
>>> headed
>>>>>> to the Attic.  The usual question is “Can the project round up
the 3
>>> ‘+1’
>>>>>> votes required to make an Apache release?”  Historically, we have
been
>>> able
>>>>>> to do that, at least for maintenance releases, and I don’t see
that
>>>>>> changing, at least for a while.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The problem is future development and the ongoing health of the
>>> project.
>>>>>> On this point, we don’t seem to have consensus on where we want
the
>>>>>> project to go, and there’s limited enthusiasm for user-focused
>>>>>> requirements.  Also, my calls to discuss the health of the project
>>> have had
>>>>>> no response (well, there was a tangent about the build system, but
>>>>>> personally I think that misses the point).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I will include in the board report the fact that no-one has expressed
>>> an
>>>>>> interest in taking over as PMC chair, and ask if there are any other
>>> expert
>>>>>> resources that can help.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Greg Trasuk.
>>> 

Mime
View raw message