I agree with Bill and Cris. We are talking about the same thing.
> 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
+1
> 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.
+1
> By the way, does the voting process require a quorum and/or
> unanimous voting?
I think lazy consensus is required for most things. It won't be
feasible to require a 100% vote on a volunteer project.
Andrus
On Mar 10, 2006, at 6:18 PM, Cris Daniluk wrote:
> 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 - 10:56:13 EST