Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-synapse-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 20513 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2010 05:26:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 26 Apr 2010 05:26:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 40296 invoked by uid 500); 26 Apr 2010 05:26:18 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-synapse-dev-archive@synapse.apache.org Received: (qmail 40261 invoked by uid 500); 26 Apr 2010 05:26:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@synapse.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@synapse.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@synapse.apache.org Received: (qmail 40252 invoked by uid 99); 26 Apr 2010 05:26:18 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:26:18 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=10.0 tests=AWL,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ruwan.linton@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.195 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.221.195] (HELO mail-qy0-f195.google.com) (209.85.221.195) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:26:13 +0000 Received: by mail-qy0-f195.google.com with SMTP id 33so10834832qyk.24 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:25:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=IHiHefMKTfVesNgJc6P4Pzpw/+t/tgxd6Wxec4J9KF0=; b=XXHiqmKGXGAhuoP4LEqwsBdBoFh3UyU9utiONhHbtQ973S3kz9ECj17QldFQz5uLdp kVDil3KkaWqYHOHI/ThuZYjIomHtoeM5+XJqcBYZEzMs530BeIpfKZ/OvfPcwTWMSdrx +S646eq1TUdLBZ/150epFhiydDUR7e0ZXUn08= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=woH26UpZn2yyec7mxIiAwvQcvzcduhsAAu8N0V4BW7g5MRStOPG1x4PJ5+J1vK1OnD dqXbI0DTSUm6qfaLYADVs48p7yaT+Yr5Rdyz3AZsvDb8vB+s/Kg5s9tct8ZY3L0hS6zv 1OipbAnW6c7zdacgaq/dq+GjSevIE51Xm9tso= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.181.16 with SMTP id bw16mr4328972qcb.0.1272259553104; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.12.207 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:25:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:55:53 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Synapse 2.0 ?? From: Ruwan Linton To: dev@synapse.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163630fd5fb993e104851d021a --00163630fd5fb993e104851d021a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Eric, First of all, if you see my second mail that I fired few minutes before... you will realize one of the ideas behind going for a 2.0. Since the XML Schema compliance will make some changes to the configuration language. We can do a 1.3 from the branch, but we cannot just dump the release, we need to complete documentation, do testing and so forth, which will result in more work. Having the above said features on the trunk and the schema compliance sort of changes planned to go into the trunk. I don't like to waste time on those aspects on 1.3 branch. I am about to send a release plan, it will at least take another month for the 2.0 release, but will be much more effective the time than spending another 2 weeks and doing a 1.3 release, with lesser features than trunk. I agree the 1.3 release has been dragging which is main reason for this strategy, but I could guarantee that the same thing wont happen for the 2.0 :-) Being said all that, if the user community is really interested in the 1.3 we could of course go for it before 2.0. Thanks, Ruwan On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Hubert, Eric w= rote: > Hi Ruwan, > > > > I have a set of new stuff in mind to be completed on the 2.0 release as > well. So if there is no objection I would like to bring in a release plan > to be executed with the set of features that we are going to do for the 2= .0 > release of Synapse. > > WDYT? > > No objections =96 only thoughts=85 Why not just dropping the current 1.3-= branch > and recreating from trunk to stabilize there? From a project perspective = I > think it is important to release more frequently. I=92m not quite sure wh= ether > the new features really justify a major release. I would see this > differently, if we had done any incompatible changes or completely modifi= ed > the configuration language for example=85 Also if we now incorporate even= more > features, the release, however we are going to call it, will take even > longer until it can get out. > > > > Regards, > > Eric > > > > > --=20 Ruwan Linton Technical Lead & Product Manager; WSO2 ESB; http://wso2.org/esb WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org email: ruwan@wso2.com; cell: +94 77 341 3097 blog: http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com --00163630fd5fb993e104851d021a Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Eric,

First of all, if you see my second mail that I fired few mi= nutes before... you will realize one of the ideas behind going for a 2.0. S= ince the XML Schema compliance will make some changes to the configuration = language.

We can do a 1.3 from the branch, but we cannot just dump the release, w= e need to complete documentation, do testing and so forth, which will resul= t in more work. Having the above said features on the trunk and the schema = compliance sort of changes planned to go into the trunk. I don't like t= o waste time on those aspects on 1.3 branch.

I am about to send a release plan, it will at least take another month = for the 2.0 release, but will be much more effective the time than spending= another 2 weeks and doing a 1.3 release, with lesser features than trunk.<= br>
I agree the 1.3 release has been dragging which is main reason for this= strategy, but I could guarantee that the same thing wont happen for the 2.= 0 :-)

Being said all that, if the user community is really intereste= d in the 1.3 we could of course go for it before 2.0.

Thanks,
Ruwan

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010= at 10:45 AM, Hubert, Eric <Eric.Hubert@foxmobile.com> wrote:

Hi Ruwan,

=A0

I have a set of new stuff in mind to = be completed on the 2.0 release as well. So if there is no objection I would like to= bring in a release plan to be executed with the set of features that we are going= to do for the 2.0 release of Synapse.

WDYT?

No objections =96 only thoughts=85 Why not just dropping the current 1.3-branch and recreating from trunk to stabilize there? From a project perspective I think it is important to rele= ase more frequently. I=92m not quite sure whether the new features really justi= fy a major release. I would see this differently, if we had done any incompatibl= e changes or completely modified the configuration language for example=85 Al= so if we now incorporate even more features, the release, however we are going to call it, will take even longer until it can get out.

=A0

Regards,

=A0=A0=A0 Eric

=A0

=A0




--
Ruwan Linton
Technic= al Lead & Product Manager; WSO2 ESB; ht= tp://wso2.org/esb
WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2= .org
email: ruwan@wso2.com; cell: +94 77 3= 41 3097
blog: http://ruwansbl= og.blogspot.com
--00163630fd5fb993e104851d021a--