Everyone here is attempting to build a thriving community. It's just that there are differing opinions about how to do it. The major issue is whether Teiid "releases" should be mothballed prior to Designer availability. So far there is no agreement on that. Van's assertion that Teiid or the Server isn't valuable without a Designer release is really is really the same line of thought. The Teiid lead's perspective is that we need to have defined Teiid releases - in terms of connector api, server api, functionality, etc. - so that the Designer, connector, or server developers have something stable to target. To that end a 6.0.0 release of Teiid does not impede the 6.0 release of Designer, rather it is essential. Whether it's "usable" on its own only matters to how we promote its use. Furthermore all changes made based upon Designer integration problems have been made to both 6.0.1 and 6.1.0. So we will have the ability to provide a release version of Teiid that is completely compatible with the Designer near its release. Finally the Teiid developers have been working constantly with the Designer developers to hammer out all release issues. I should have also been more particular about the phase "forward looking". I mean to say the 7 release will have alternative metadata mechanisms. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Van Halbert" <vhalbert(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "John Doyle" <jdoyle(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Steven Hawkins" <shawkins(a)redhat.com&gt;, teiid-designer-dev(a)lists.jboss.org, teiid-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:26:19 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [teiid-designer-dev] Re: [teiid-dev] 6.1 Release Plain and simple, the server is no good without the designer. And until we can get thru this period of getting it all to work together as a stable set of code, it doesn't do anyone any good. I agree, down the road, once we get this working that the 2 projects can live independently, but it can't happen until its all working. And the community doesn't start thriving until they can use it. On Apr 23, 2009, at 8:16 AM, John Doyle wrote: > I addressed the desire to have additional mechanisms to create Teiid > artifacts, and those mechanisms don't exist yet, we shouldn't > operate like they do. > > Its our job to build a thriving community, and the success of that > effort will be determined by our ability to produce compelling high > quality community projects, not platforms. The platform is > immaterial to this discussion. > > ~jd > > > ----- "Steven Hawkins" <shawkins(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> We understand your perspective, but forward looking we do not see the >> Designer as being the only metadata mechanism for Teiid. >> Intrinsically tying the release schedules together even from the >> start >> does not seem helpful. I also understand that Designer feels >> pressure >> to release - however there is no hard requirement to do so. >> >> As Ramesh indicates it is already the role of the platform release to >> put the stamp of quality across all correlated projects in that >> platform. We do not need to reproduce that effort in the community - >> it will already flow into the upstream. >> >> Also we will have a 6.1.0 release in the unstable spot starting next >> week. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "John Doyle" <jdoyle(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Ramesh Reddy" <rareddy(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: "Steven Hawkins" <shawkins(a)redhat.com&gt;, >> teiid-designer-dev(a)lists.jboss.org, teiid-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:08:16 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada >> Central >> Subject: Re: [teiid-designer-dev] Re: [teiid-dev] 6.1 Release >> >> >> ----- "Ramesh Reddy" <rareddy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 20:58 -0400, John Doyle wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm aware that there's an aggressive schedule, but I question >> that >>>> value of releasing Teiid on it's projected release date, if the >>>> Designer is not ready to release, or vice versa. >>> >>> Release soon and release often is the mantra for JBoss. I do not >>> believe >>> either that they should be tightly dependent on release on each >> other >>> either. It would hard to adjust each others feature bucket, just so >>> that >>> they can be released together. Just think about the lost time for >> the >>> team waiting. >> >> What about leaving it on the shelf until they're both done? There's >> no lost time if one project completes it's 6.1 work but it's not >> 'officially' released and labeled as 6.1 until the other project is >> ready. We already have stable and unstable slots on the community >> site, but we're not putting any unstable out there. Put it out there >> as unstable and move onto features for the next release. When we've >> reach a level of quality between the two projects, then we label it >> and post the stable version. >> >>> >>> For this exact purpose we are creating branch (for example 6.0.x), >> if >>> you are looking for a stable branch to make such changes. Then it >> is >>> up >>> us to either cut a patch or cut another release based on amount of >>> changes. >>> >>> Platform releases, that tie all of them together. >>> >> >> Why do we want to have a process that lends itself to the possibility >> that we will have to patch a release just so users can have tooling >> that works with it? >> >>>> I have changes coming in 6.1 to connectors that are depending >> upon >>>> importer changes. I can mock up tests for the connector changes, >>> but >>>> I won't really be able to validate a feature until I have two >>> stable >>>> projects in my hands that are pretty much locked down. >>>> >>> I understand, what you are saying, but instead of working around >> it, >>> we >>> need to fix it. If you saying that we have connector changes that >> are >>> dependent upon tooling code to the runtime code, I we need to >>> >>> a) better plan according to upcoming releases >>> b) decouple dependencies, use better abstractions >>> c) modularize >>> >>> on these fronts we have stepped up and we need to to continue to >> push >>> further. Lets think in these terms and see if we can reduce this >> for >>> future releases. Can XML importer plugin can be deployed on its own >>> without Designer stuff? >> >> All of these things are great, and I agree with all of these things. >> To go further, we have wanted and and even produced alternative >> tooling (mmshell). Someday there may be several different options >> for >> creating the artifacts that Teiid needs, and then your argument >> becomes much stronger. But I don't think the projects should >> adopt a >> process that treats the the individual projects as independent when >> they aren't yet. We should operate in the circumstances that exist, >> not the ones we hope to create. >> >>> >>>> We can call them independent all we want, users will disagree. >>>> There's already traffic on the lists to demonstrate that. >>>> >>> The current release we are going through lot of connector type >>> definition changes, once we stabilize embedded integration and >>> connector >>> integration this should reduced greatly, unless we change the vdb >>> indexing. We got JIRAs for lot of these already. >> >> Yes, should, but how will we know? How do we validate that? The >> truth is that we don't know what we're going to be changing in 18 >> months, and maybe it's going to be disruptive, maybe it's not. I >> tend >> to think that if it's not, then we're probably not doing very >> interesting work. Another uncomfortable truth is that it's very hard >> to see the full consequences of the changes we make. But either way >> we should adopt a process that leads to higher quality, and I think >> that posting the projects as unstable until we validate compatibility >> achieves that without negative effect. >>> >>> Ramesh.. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> teiid-dev mailing list >> teiid-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/teiid-dev > > -- > John Doyle > Senior Software Engineer > JBoss, a division of Red Hat > Office: 978.392.3916 > Email: jdoyle(a)redhat.com > _______________________________________________ > teiid-dev mailing list > teiid-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/teiid-dev Van Halbert Principal Software Eng. Red Hat, Inc. ------ vhalbert(a)redhat.com