river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java
Date Wed, 06 Jul 2016 10:26:30 GMT
I know, thankfully that failure wasn't hard to track down and fix, hopefully no more blocking
issues arise, I like to have a full weekend to generate release artifacts, run tests and rat

There's an occassional bug in classdep that causes failures so you have to test every build
to make sure all's well.

We can move to git after the release, for now though, there's no harm asking about the possibility
of migrating.

I suppose we could just leave the version at 3.0.0 instead of changing it to 2.3.0?  There
are no breaking changes, so it's non compliant with agreed versioning, but it would avoid
a lot of updates to JIRA.



Sent from my Samsung device.
  Include original message
---- Original message ----
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
Sent: 06/07/2016 06:59:14 pm
To: dev@river.apache.org
Subject: Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java

I just hope a move to git does not become yet another reason to delay a  
release. A few months ago we were really close - just a matter of fixing  
a qa build failure. 

On 7/5/2016 11:44 PM, Peter wrote: 
> Thanks Brian, 
> Hang in there, I think we can get back on track without fragmenting, 
> I've seen the developers on this project work well together in the 
> past.  I do agree GitHub is less work for releases, I'm going to attempt

> to get access to Apache's git wip repository.  My experience has been 
> that much more communication occurs on Apache River mail lists.  The 
> traffic I get with my fork on GitHub relates to input validation for 
> deserialization. 
> Regards, 
> Peter. 
> On 5/07/2016 12:49 AM, Bryan Thompson wrote: 
>> I am just not that familiar with Apache policy.  However, river is a

>> real, 
>> functional, deployed in use platform.   I certainly agree that there is

>> deadlock at this point in terms of the people and process.  However, I am

>> not sure that an attic is the right place for a well grounded and fielded

>> technology.  While the community might not be able to move ahead along a

>> clear roadmap, there is still support from the community for the 
>> technology. 
>> Maybe a move to github would help to break things loose?  Open up the

>> development and release process more?  Right now things are hung up in

>> part 
>> on Apache process. Maybe Apache is just not the right place at this time

>> for this technology? 
>> Thanks, 
>> Bryan 
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Patricia Shanahan<pats@acm.org>  wrote:

>>> I think it is time to raise on the user list moving River to the attic.

>>> There is no sign of progress on a release. What interest there is in

>>> development seems to be going in different directions. Using portions of

>>> River code in other projects would still be feasible with it in the

>>> attic, 
>>> but there would be no need for a PMC, and board reports. 
>>> Patricia 
>>> On 7/4/2016 6:44 AM, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote: 
>>> ... 
>>>> But then again, there are a lot of people reading this, and a big part

>>>> of them having no interest at all in incompatible improvements, and i

>>>> see no other option than leaving them behind, with a jini compatible

>>>> maintenance release. This will certainly tear the river community

>>>> apart, 
>>>> or at least cause a lot of friction. So when i see only the two of us,

>>>> moving in a new direction, i can't help feeling, what is the use of it

>>>> all. 
>>>> G. Simon 

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