On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Jacob Beard <jbea...@cs.mcgill.ca> wrote: > Hi Rahul, > > I read through all of the materials you linked to. I have technical > questions about how to integrate maven with ant for the purposes of creating > releases, but I'll save those for the maven user's list. I do have a few > other process-oriented questions. > > First, http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CommonsEtiquette says this about > voting on promotion from sandbox: > > /"The health of the development community. Fellow committers need to be > persuaded that users will be supported and the code pushed forward by the > listed committers. This is a major issue since there's only a limited amount > of energy amongst the commons committers and no one wants to have to support > a component whose committers have gone AWOL."/ > > Given that I am the only developer of this project, I'd like to know if > there have there been other single-developer Commons projects that have been > successfully promoted. I'd rather not put it out for a vote if it is likely > to be refused for this reason. > <snip/>
There certainly are such examples, Commons SCXML itself is one (and had to try twice before the promotion passed muster). Majority of components at Commons do not have the luxury of having more than one active developer at any given time. As the above wiki page mentions, in terms of community aspects (so code quality etc. kept aside) the key is: (a) the developer(s) are excited about the code and committed to supporting the code (b) the rest of the community is convinced of (a) -- everyone understands life can get in the way, but the intention to support in the long run is what folks look for IMO (c) enough of the community thinks the code is a useful addition to proper > Second, the page on creating releases links to this document on versioning: > http://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html > > It mentions beta releases, but not alpha releases. Given that scxml-js has > only had one user, which is me, I expect it to be buggy and would rate it as > alpha-quality software. However, I still think it's worth releasing, as it's > already proven robust enough for me to use in implementing a non-trivial > demo, and I believe there will be other people interested in using it. Are > alpha releases condoned by Commons? > <snap/> I think thats what the release versioning document refers to as milestone releases for wider testing purposes. The version identifier and download page etc. will have to make it clear its a milestone/alpha release. I personally think its OK to have clearly marked alpha releases. -Rahul > Let me know what you think. Thanks, > > Jake > > On 10-08-23 11:49 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Jacob Beard<jbea...@cs.mcgill.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've been working to overhaul the build system to phase out the custom >>> JavaScript build script in favor of Ant. I'm currently writing a blog >>> post >>> about the full process leading up to this, but suffice it to say that I >>> now >>> have an Ant script working that has most of the functionality of the >>> original build script. A big advantage to using Ant instead of the custom >>> build script is that it is now possible to create two important release >>> artifacts: >>> >>> 1. A minimized JavaScript file which contains all of the JavaScript >>> modules >>> in scxml-js >>> 2. A class file and JAR version of scxml-js that can be run standalone on >>> the JVM >>> >>> The first artifact means that only one JavaScript file will need to be >>> downloaded to a web page for scxml-js to compile SCXML documents on the >>> fly, >>> while the second artifact means that the user will only need to download >>> a >>> single JAR file in order to run scxml-js from the command line. >>> >>> Using ant also means that it will be possible to integrate the building >>> of >>> these artifacts with the test code that is already in place, so the built >>> artifacts will be tested to ensure their robustness. >>> >>> Once this is complete, I think it should be technically feasible to roll >>> out >>> a (super pre-alpha) release suitable for end users, comprised of these >>> two >>> artifacts. >>> >>> What I'm wondering is whether there is anything I need to do (in terms of >>> licensing, etc.) in order to publish a release? >>> >>> >> >> <snip/> >> >> Getting to a first release has some process overhead (subsequent >> releases are relatively easier). At Commons, there can be no releases >> of code in the Commons Sandbox. Code that is ready for release first >> needs to be promoted to Commons Proper. This is done by a vote so the >> promotion proposal needs enough support in the Commons PMC to pass a >> vote. >> >> Please read the following wiki page which mentions this in details >> (particularly the promotion section): >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CommonsEtiquette >> >> Having an Ant build is definitely quite an improvement, though if you >> can add a Maven build (that uses the Commons Parent POM) you'll save >> yourself a lot of effort in terms of getting the release artifacts >> pass inspection here at Commons. Here is some information on the usual >> process for creating releases at Commons (lets ignore the Nexus bits >> for now): >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CreatingReleases >> >> Releases must have a source distribution (at Commons, this is usually >> a tagged copy of whats in SVN) and it must be possible to recreate the >> release artifacts from that source. >> >> My suggestion would be to get the build in shape such that its easily >> possible to create the artifacts you mention and then move to the >> proposal for promoting [scxml-js] out of the Commons Sandbox. >> >> -Rahul >> >> >> >>> >>> Let me know what you think. Thanks, >>> >>> Jake >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
