I'm +52 on leaving the package names in tact for 1.2.. though I'm totally
biased. I am releasing a major application w/1.2 M11 today, and branched for
release yesterday. If there were a package rename, I couldn't justify that
serious level of effort to update packages on a release branch just to get a
more stable version of Cayenne, as awkward as that is :)
On the other hand, doing the package rename in conjunction with feature
changes may be a burden. Acegi just did this - 1.0 changed all packages,
PLUS changed tons of features. It was an annoying and frustrating process.
Maybe we could release a follow-on "1.2-apache" release that introduces no
new functionality, but allows users to migrate to new packages now without
also having to adapt to refactorings we may do.
By the way, does the voting process require a quorum and/or unanimous
voting?
Cris
On 3/10/06, Bill Dudney <bdudne..pache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I mailed Dave of rollerweblogger.org (the roller weblog stuff driving
> blogs.sun.com). The Roller community recently made the move into the
> incubator so I wanted to get his take on making releases once in the
> incubator.
>
> The general feel was 'overall not a big deal', some things in the
> process slow down releases but not by much. The process goes about
> like this;
> - the roller developers work towards a release (code, test etc)
> - the roller developers vote for a release
> - once the developers confirm they ask the incubator pmc to vote (i
> think that happens on genera..ncubator)
> - once approved to do a release the roller community does its thing
> and puts the release stuff (bin, src etc) on java.net
> - roller has to include somewhere in the download that 'this stuff is
> not official apache released software yet'
>
> From the incubator status page it looks like the roller community
> has moved their code to apache svn but has kept their jira and wiki
> separate for now.
>
> The roller community has also kept the org.roller package names for
> the time being. So for the 1.2 time frame we could keep our package
> names in place.
>
> So all that what it boils down to (from what I can tell anyway) is
> that we can do the 1.2 release with the old package names.
>
> Here is a straw-man proposal for an approach, not in order just
> thoughts...
>
> - move community to apache (mailing lists etc)
> - move code to apache
> -- prob would be good to wait till the next M release, that way we
> have some breathing room for adjustments
> - leave the package structure etc in place until 1.2 final
> - post 1.2 we start repackaging the code
> - 1.2 code remains the 'trunk' until its released
>
> Thoughts,
>
> Bill Dudney
> MyFaces - myfaces.apache.org
> Wadi - incubator.apache.org/wadi
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Mar 10 2006 - 10:18:48 EST