Apache JDO Project - [VOTE] Release jdo2 beta

Author

[VOTE] Release jdo2 beta

Craig L Russell

2006-01-14, 5:45 pm

Jean T. Anderson

2006-01-14, 5:45 pm

Craig L Russell wrote:
> Javadogs,
>
> I'd like to propose that we release jdo2 beta based on the current code
> in the svn repository and a few minor changes.
>
> 1. JDO-278 Change the group ids for the project from apache-jdo to
>
> org.apache.jdo for the non-API projects
> javax.jdo for the API projects.

Craig,

This might be a dumb question (especially since I mostly lurk on this
list and rarely pay attention to the posts that go by), but will a
javax.jdo package be part of the Apache JDO release? And, if so, is
using "javax.jdo" acceptable given these posts?

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod...il.gmail.com%3e
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod...319@lyra.org%3e

Those are just two posts from a long, tangled thread. "javax.jdo" might
be fine, but questions might be raised.

-jean

>
> 2. Change the version on all projects to 2.0-beta. This can be changed
> when we make the JDO-278 changes.
>
> 3. JDO-279 Distribute the tck20 as a source distribution and the other
> components as downloadable binary components. These would go into the
> apache maven repository at www.apache.org/dist/java-repository
> <http://www.apache.org/dist/java-repository>.
>
> I'd like to have everyone's vote by Thursday 18-Jan-2006.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> Craig Russell
>
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>

Craig L Russell

2006-01-14, 5:45 pm

Jean T. Anderson

2006-01-14, 5:45 pm

Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> On Jan 14, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Excellent question. We are using the org.apache.jdo package name (and
> group id) for everything in this project except for the API jars which
> are part of the specification and therefore must be named javax.jdo.
>
> These two jars are similar to the javax.jmx and other similar
> geronimo-spec jars that are specified as part of the Java platform not
> simply an implementation. We had originally used the apache-jdo group id
> for the APIs even though they were all javax.jdo classes and interfaces.
> And thought that this was confusing.
> ...
> I hope this answers your question.

It does. Thanks,

-jean

Daniel John Debrunner

2006-01-14, 8:45 pm

Wes Biggs

2006-01-14, 8:45 pm

Vote in favor.

Wes

Craig L Russell wrote:

> Javadogs,
>
> I'd like to propose that we release jdo2 beta based on the current
> code in the svn repository and a few minor changes.
>
> 1. JDO-278 Change the group ids for the project from apache-jdo to
>
> org.apache.jdo for the non-API projects
> javax.jdo for the API projects.
>
> 2. Change the version on all projects to 2.0-beta. This can be changed
> when we make the JDO-278 changes.
>
> 3. JDO-279 Distribute the tck20 as a source distribution and the other
> components as downloadable binary components. These would go into the
> apache maven repository at www.apache.org/dist/java-repository
> <http://www.apache.org/dist/java-repository>.
>
> I'd like to have everyone's vote by Thursday 18-Jan-2006.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> Craig Russell
>
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>

Craig L Russell

2006-01-14, 8:45 pm

Daniel John Debrunner

2006-01-15, 2:45 am

Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for the advice. This is my first release.
>
> What we are trying to release is several jar files from the jdo2 project
> plus a source download. I'll stage these on my apache.org/~clr site
> along with instructions on what to do with them.

I'm not sure what you mean here, Apache releases are distributed from
Apache mirrors, not from people's home directories on Apache servers.

> Since the tck is a requirement for claiming compatibility with JSR 243,
> we need to distribute its sources. But the rest of the dependencies are
> distributed as binaries accessible via maven.
>
> So what would you like to see here? We've started the release process,
> and need a vote to make the components available on the Apache web site.
> Clearly I can make the binaries available as a maven repository in my
> ~clr web site but the other part is the process of getting people
> comfortable with the release process itself.

When Derby was getting started I found the HTTP server release
guidelines very useful:

http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html

The HTTP guidelines do talk about source only as a release, but with
Java projects you don't have the issue of multiple binaries, so a
release can include the binary (jar files as well).

Derby has a release process on its wiki:

http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/DerbySnapshotOrRelease

I think the point is that a release is what the JDO project wants to
distribute through the Apache mirrors. People need to vote on the actual
tar/zip that will be posted, not just on a state of the svn respository.
For example Derby had some issues with a release where something like
the scripts files bundled in the jar files did not have execute
permission, something that was obvious when people tried out the release
to-be, but maybe not from svn.

Hope this helps,
Dan.

Craig L Russell

2006-01-15, 5:45 pm

Michael Bouschen

2006-01-16, 7:45 am

Hi Craig,

I vote in favor.

Regards Michael

> Javadogs,
>
> I'd like to propose that we release jdo2 beta based on the current code
> in the svn repository and a few minor changes.
>
> 1. JDO-278 Change the group ids for the project from apache-jdo to
>
> org.apache.jdo for the non-API projects
> javax.jdo for the API projects.
>
> 2. Change the version on all projects to 2.0-beta. This can be changed
> when we make the JDO-278 changes.
>
> 3. JDO-279 Distribute the tck20 as a source distribution and the other
> components as downloadable binary components. These would go into the
> apache maven repository at www.apache.org/dist/java-repository
> <http://www.apache.org/dist/java-repository>.
>
> I'd like to have everyone's vote by Thursday 18-Jan-2006.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> Craig Russell
>
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>

--
Michael Bouschen Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH
mailto:mbo.tech@spree.de http://www.tech.spree.de/
Tel.:++49/30/235 520-33 Buelowstr. 66
Fax.:++49/30/2175 2012 D-10783 Berlin

Thomas Fischer

2006-01-17, 2:45 am

Craig L Russell wrote:
> Javadogs,
>
> I'd like to propose that we release jdo2 beta based on the current code
> in the svn repository and a few minor changes.
>
> 1. JDO-278 Change the group ids for the project from apache-jdo to
>
> org.apache.jdo for the non-API projects
> javax.jdo for the API projects.
>
> 2. Change the version on all projects to 2.0-beta. This can be changed
> when we make the JDO-278 changes.
>
> 3. JDO-279 Distribute the tck20 as a source distribution and the other
> components as downloadable binary components. These would go into the
> apache maven repository at www.apache.org/dist/java-repository
> <http://www.apache.org/dist/java-repository>.
>
> I'd like to have everyone's vote by Thursday 18-Jan-2006.

It is probably just a misunderstanding on my side, but it sounds as if you
would like to release the other components _only_ as downloadable
binaries. Is this really the case ? If yes, may I ask for the motivation
behind not wanting to release the sources of the other packages ?

I am aware of the souces being available from svn anyway, but in my
experience distributing the source code lowers the barrier for users to
have a look at the source code enormously. As maven is used for the build,
creating a source distribution should be no large deal (but maybe I'm
mistaken here).

Thomas

Craig L Russell

2006-01-17, 5:45 pm

Andy Jefferson

2006-01-17, 5:45 pm

Hi Craig,

> I'll take a look at distributing the sources for everything we're
> releasing here. No one on the project is really an expert on maven
> but I'm sure we can figure it out.

Just do
"maven dist"

This creates all source (and binary) distributions under
"target/distributions".

--
Andy

Geoff hendrey

2006-01-17, 5:45 pm

My vote is uninformed since I have been unable to
participate in the TCK process. But I give my yes
vote.

--- Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM> wrote:

> Javadogs,
>
> I'd like to propose that we release jdo2 beta based
> on the current
> code in the svn repository and a few minor changes.
>
> 1. JDO-278 Change the group ids for the project from
> apache-jdo to
>
> org.apache.jdo for the non-API projects
> javax.jdo for the API projects.
>
> 2. Change the version on all projects to 2.0-beta.
> This can be
> changed when we make the JDO-278 changes.
>
> 3. JDO-279 Distribute the tck20 as a source
> distribution and the
> other components as downloadable binary components.
> These would go
> into the apache maven repository at
> www.apache.org/dist/java-repository.
>
> I'd like to have everyone's vote by Thursday
> 18-Jan-2006.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
> http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>

Matthew T. Adams

2006-01-17, 5:45 pm

Ditto. I vote in favor, too.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Bouschen [mailto:mbo.tech@spree.de]
>Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 2:51 AM
>To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>Cc: JDO Expert Group
>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release jdo2 beta
>
>
>Hi Craig,
>
>I vote in favor.
>
>Regards Michael
>
>current code
>be changed
>the other
>into the
>http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>
>
>--
>Michael Bouschen Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH
>mailto:mbo.tech@spree.de http://www.tech.spree.de/
>Tel.:++49/30/235 520-33 Buelowstr. 66
>Fax.:++49/30/2175 2012 D-10783 Berlin
>

Thomas Fischer

2006-01-18, 7:45 am

Craig,

Thanks very much for your answer, that sounds very good.

Concerning the vote: As I understand you plan to make the release only
available in your home directory at apache, you do not need any approval
from the PMC for this. (You only need it if you put sumething in a
mirrored directory, such as www.apache.org/dist). Anyway, I do think that
the proposal to release a beta version makes sense, so

+1 for releasing a beta of JDO

Thomas

> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. That's one of the significant advantages of
> being in Apache for this project.

> I'll take a look at distributing the sources for everything we're
> releasing here. No one on the project is really an expert on maven
> but I'm sure we can figure it out.

> Thanks,

> Craig

Daniel John Debrunner

2006-01-19, 2:45 am

Thomas Fischer wrote:

> Craig,
>
> Thanks very much for your answer, that sounds very good.
>
> Concerning the vote: As I understand you plan to make the release only
> available in your home directory at apache, you do not need any approval
> from the PMC for this. (You only need it if you put sumething in a
> mirrored directory, such as www.apache.org/dist). Anyway, I do think
> that the proposal to release a beta version makes sense, so

If it's a release from Craig's home directory then isn't it just a build
provided by Craig, it's not a Release of the JDO project.

I guess I'm still confused as to what this vote is about, no vote is
needed for Craig to produce a set of jars etc. on his home directory.

I don't think a vote is needed to start a release process either, all
that is needed is a release manager willing to do a release.

I'm just worried that people might be thinking that by voting +1 here it
means that there will be a JDO beta release without any further votes. A
vote is required on the actual distribution for an Apache release of JDO.

Or am I totally off base here.

Dan.

Craig L Russell

2006-01-19, 2:45 am

Craig L Russell

2006-01-21, 6:30 pm