tuscany-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Simon Laws" <simonsl...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: R1.1. Status - was: Outstanding JIRA,, release 1.1 and Quality
Date Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:09:30 GMT
On Jan 2, 2008 6:37 PM, ant elder <antelder@apache.org> wrote:

> On Jan 2, 2008 5:04 PM, Simon Laws <simonslaws@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 2008 2:20 PM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM, Simon Laws <simonslaws@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Simon Laws <simonslaws@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As an experiment I looked down the first page of the outstanding
> bug
> > > > list
> > > > > [1] allocating to release 1.1 those bugs that I believed should be
> > > > fixed.
> > > > > I was looking for the sort of thing which showed a failure of some
> > > > feature
> > > > > of Tuscany, didn't obviously have a work round and that wasn't
> > > obviously
> > > > > some kind of enhancement from what we have already. Difficult to
> > apply
> > > > this
> > > > > consistently and I'm sure we would all come up with different
> lists.
> > > Non
> > > > the
> > > > > less I came up with 9 JIRA on the page of 50 (I moved some others
> as
> > > I'm
> > > > > trying to address as many of the release build related bugs as I
> > can.
> > > > I'm
> > > > > not counting them for this purpose). Just be multiplying that up
> for
> > > the
> > > > > remaining pages that gives us over 30 must fixes before 1.1.  So
> if
> > > you
> > > > > are planning to work on the release during the rest of the year
> > please
> > > > use
> > > > > this as a guide.
> > > > >
> > > > > In reality I know we won't get these all done but we need to
> ensure
> > > 1.1.
> > > > > is of suitable quality. Perhaps a more realistic way of looking at
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > if we we had to do 2 each before we start voting on a release
> > > candidate
> > > > in
> > > > > January which two would they be? I'm working my way though the
> > > > (hopefully)
> > > > > straightforward release related JIRA but I expect the RC process
> > will
> > > > raise
> > > > > more of these so experience tells us we will have these to deal
> with
> > > > also.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any thoughts about how we approach this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=-1&component=12310625&component=12311294&component=12310646&component=12310649&component=12311818&component=12310652&component=12311651&component=12310647&component=12310952&component=12311790&component=12311980&component=12311785&component=12311645&component=12311586&component=12311583&component=12310648&component=12311793&component=12311650&component=12310921&component=12311792&component=12311791&component=12311648&component=12311890&component=12310651&component=12310800&component=12311649&component=12310650&component=12310801&component=12311647&component=12311910&component=12310644&component=12311354&component=12310590&component=12310642&fixfor=-1&fixfor=-2&fixfor=12312358&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As you may have noticed I've just moved over the rest of the easy
> JIRA
> > > > that
> > > > relate to samples for 1.1 and that mostly got deferred last time
> > round.
> > > > These are primarily README type fixes and take little effort to
> either
> > > fix
> > > > or discount so I'll get on with them. I've still not had any
> feedback
> > on
> > > > how
> > > > people feel about the harder technical JIRA that remain outstanding.
> > > >
> > > > Currently I'm waiting for a few things before I can potentially cut
> > the
> > > > branch. In particular,
> > > >
> > > > JMS
> > > > Venkat's last policy changes (he's committed but there may be a few
> > > > adjustments to make)
> > > > Some help with the Saxon dependency
> > > >
> > > > This means the formal branch won't happen for a couple of days yet.
> > > > However,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Should we get some more of the outstanding JIRA fixed for 1.1?
> > > > If so which ones (I moved some of the likely candidates to 1.1before
> > > > Christmas but not all), i.e. who is going to do what ?
> > > >
> > > > Personally there are a couple of domain related JIRAs I want to fix
> > but
> > > I
> > > > need to know from everyone whether I should go ahead and cut the
> > branch
> > > > (once I'm in a position to do so) or whether we are going to spend
> > some
> > > > time
> > > > fixing JIRA.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does taking the branch have to wait for JMS? I'm a little behind so it
> > may
> > > be a day or two before the binding is in a releasable state but the
> > branch
> > > could still happen now and I'll can just copy over any changes.
> > >
> > >   ...ant
> > >
> > Ant
> >
> > Can I ask what version of Active MQ the new code will be using?
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
>
> Its on 4.1.1 presently but as 5.0 is the latest i'd been thinking about
> moving up to that.
>
>   ...ant
>
OK, If we can get it working on the latest that sounds preferable assuming
there if not lots of work involved.

I haven't looked at the dependencies for 5.0 but for 4.1.1 there are some
that it looks like we need to knock out, for example,
jmdns-1.0-RC2.jarlooks a bit suspect as it appears to be LGPL. There
are other licenses to
check and also a load that may be optional that we can just remove.

Nudge me if you make the change and I'll start looking at the new
dependencies.

Regards

Simon

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