Releasing Windsor

[Ayende Rahien]

I would like to release Windsor on this weekend.
I am going to fix the last 3 bugs soon.

However, I realized that I have another problem. I have no idea what is actually involved in it.

[Jonathon Rossi]

Are you planning on just taking a build of DP off the trunk when you release MK?

--
Jono

[Ayende Rahien]

Haven't thought about that, told you that I wasn't sure what is part of actually releasing it.

[Ken Egozi]

I'd say that releasing it would mean (not ordered):

- increase the version number (1.0.4.revision) to help distinctify RC3+ from RTM+
- tag
- decide what goes along - which facilities are part of the release.
- update Getting Started projects if there are any
- update the website/windsor page to reflect the release assemblies
- put the released assemblies (Release build -> dlls + xmls) in a zip somewhere on the server and link to there from the website

--
Ken Egozi.
http://www.kenegozi.com/blog
http://www.delver.com
http://www.musicglue.com
http://www.castleproject.org
http://www.gotfriends.co.il

[Jonathon Rossi]

- increase the version number (1.0.4.revision) to help distinctify RC3+ from RTM+

I remember Hammett mentioning at some point he suggested just jumping to 1.1 to make it really clear, since 1.0 has basically been a 2 year rolling release off the trunk. What do you think?

--
Jono

[Richard Fleming]

Ayende,

Issue FACILITIES-ISSUE-111, which was logged as an issue with the startable facility that is a part of the Microkernel/Windsor set, actually resolves an issue within Windsor itself.

Since it was logged as a bug in the startable facility that I manage, I resolved the issue and created a unit test to test for the problem.  However I am a non-committer, so the issue has not been resolved in trunk as of yet.

Please review and consider the patch that is attached to the issue when working to provide a release. 

The issue is here:
http://support.castleproject.org/projects/FACILITIES/issues/view/FACILITIES-ISSUE-111

Thanks!
Rick Fleming

[Ken Egozi]

curious: is there any c#3 specific code in the release?  (I do not mean the use of var/lambdas/initialisers which can be used by c#2 client code, but about stuff from System.Core.dll like Expression<> and the System.Linq extension methods)
?

[Jonathon Rossi]

but drops back under a 2.0 build.Castle Core and DP will build with the 2.0 csc and run on .NET 2.0. Internally Core uses ReaderWriterLockSlim when built with 3.5.

Ayende can provide details for MK and Windsor.

Ken, are you interested in making a .NET 2.0 release if it is feasible?

--
Jono

[Jonathon Rossi]

That should have read:

Castle Core and DP will build with the 2.0 csc and run on .NET 2.0. Internally Core uses ReaderWriterLockSlim when built with 3.5 but drops back under a 2.0 build.

--
Jono

[Ken Egozi]

Core and DO will build with the 2.0 csc

why? what's wrong with 3.5 csc targeting 2.0 (which means - no extra dlls like System.Core etc., and will run smoothly on  .NET 2.0 machine with service packs)

personally I think that 2.0 compatibility is not needed. People who use open-source would also use .net 3.5

[Jonathon Rossi]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Ken Egozi <ego...@gmail.com> wrote:

Core and DO will build with the 2.0 csc

why? what's wrong with 3.5 csc targeting 2.0 (which means - no extra dlls like System.Core etc., and will run smoothly on  .NET 2.0 machine with service packs)

There is nothing wrong with using the 3.5 csc, I was just making the point that it does work. Our build system isn't currently set up to use the 3.5 csc and the 2.0 preprocessor defines.
 

personally I think that 2.0 compatibility is not needed. People who use open-source would also use .net 3.5

I was thinking the same thing, especially that these are new releases. The only reason I kept 2.0 compatibility for Core and DP is that other OSS still wants to support .net 2.0.

--
Jono

[Ken Egozi]

I'm thinking about making Monorail 3.5 dependent.
For one, using Expression trees will allow the addition of stuff like
RedirectTo<FooController>(foo=>foo.Bar(5));
and eliminate most of the need in the CodeGenerator

on the other hand, I can keep MR in a 2.0 compatible state, throw the extras in a separate assembly, then after the release merge it back into the main assembly (so MR1.2(?) will be 3.5+ only)

[James Curran]

I believe I used so C#3 properties (eg, int SomeProp {get; set;} ) in
some of the Contrib ViewComponents. They would require the VS2008/C#3
compiler, but could get by with the .NET 2.0 CLR

[mausch]

Sorry for the plug, but you could implement those Expression-dependent
overloads as extension methods in another assembly, thus maintaining
2.0 compatibility and avoiding overload bloat in IRedirectSupport,
Controller, etc.

I've done this in RC3 and it works great:
http://bugsquash.blogspot.com/2008/07/in-same-spirit-as-my-previous-post-i.html
Just my 2 cents.

On Feb 9, 1:08 pm, Ken Egozi <egoz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking about making Monorail 3.5 dependent.
> For one, using Expression trees will allow the addition of stuff like
> RedirectTo<FooController>(foo=>foo.Bar(5));
> and eliminate most of the need in the CodeGenerator
>
> on the other hand, I can keep MR in a 2.0 compatible state, throw the extras
> in a separate assembly, then after the release merge it back into the main
> assembly (so MR1.2(?) will be 3.5+ only)
>
>
>

> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:

[hammett]

Right on.

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Ken Egozi <ego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd say that releasing it would mean (not ordered):
>
> - increase the version number (1.0.4.revision) to help distinctify RC3+ from
> RTM+
> - tag
> - decide what goes along - which facilities are part of the release.
> - update Getting Started projects if there are any
> - update the website/windsor page to reflect the release assemblies
> - put the released assemblies (Release build -> dlls + xmls) in a zip
> somewhere on the server and link to there from the website

--
Cheers,
hammett
http://hammett.castleproject.org/

[hammett]

I have no recollection of saying that :-)

[Jonathon Rossi]

:)

We'll I was close, it was about going with DP 2.1 instead of 2.0. I'd expect you'd want to follow the same convention for the rest of the projects. However, maybe not.

These are 2 quotes from a discussion about releasing DP 2.0:

AFAIC DP2 was released on the last RC. So you're looking into 2.1 or 2.0.1

I'd vote for 2.1
2.0 is very stable.

 

http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/thread/aab177d5ee9c5c58/f8ed184bd6739de0?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=dynamicproxy+2.1#f8ed184bd6739de0

--
Jono

[Jonathon Rossi]

Can we make a decision about version numbers for the next release.

--
Jono

[Colin Ramsay]

We also need to decide/find out where downloads are going to be hosted.

My other slight concern is how to createa synchronised download for
people who want a "full suite" of Castle stuff. For example, if we all
release separately then a user would have to download all the
Components separately, then MR, then Windsor, etc, etc. I know this
isn't specific to Windsor but I wanted to raise it anyway.

[Jonathon Rossi]

I think it might be best hosting the downloads on sourceforge. This would mean more people need write access to it. The main reason is that there is actually heaps of bandwidth currently used for RC3. January 2009 had 42.9 GB downloaded and I would expect that once there are more releases that is only going to increase. Sourceforge has the infrastructure to handle the load.

http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=124416&ugn=castleproject&type=prdownload&mode=alltime&package_id=0

I'd expect the package for MR to include AR and MK. For example, because the current MR release might not yet be using the latest released AR. I can see having a full castle package of the current releases that are all compatible which you can just download and be done with it a really good idea.

When the first person is ready to release a project we will need to work out what needs to go on the castle web site.

--
Jono

[Colin Ramsay]

> When the first person is ready to release a project we will need to work out
> what needs to go on the castle web site.

I was ready a little while back but I found it hard to attract comment:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/thread/612486486921b690

I think it's cos Windsor is inherently more interesting than Pagination ;)

[Jonathon Rossi]

Partly because Windsor is more interesting :). The other part is that I'm not too sure how many people would use a pagination release without MonoRail. So it is more likely they will just use MR and Pagination off the trunk until they are both together as a release.

--
Jono

[Colin Ramsay]

Exactly. So I think as well as an individual release policy there
needs to be a group policy to address this. For example, is there even
any point in a Pagination release without MR?

Anyway, sorry to derail your thread Ayende.

[Ken Egozi]

Pagination can be used from any client, not necessarily MR. 

could even be used in non-web scenarios

[Gauthier Segay]

That was a point when separating pagination from MR, I would like AR
(and more) interact with it

On Feb 15, 12:18 pm, Ken Egozi <egoz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pagination can be used from any client, not necessarily MR.
> could even be used in non-web scenarios
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
> > Partly because Windsor is more interesting :). The other part is that I'm
> > not too sure how many people would use a pagination release without
> > MonoRail. So it is more likely they will just use MR and Pagination off the
> > trunk until they are both together as a release.
>

> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Colin Ramsay <colinram...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> > When the first person is ready to release a project we will need to work
> >> out
> >> > what needs to go on the castle web site.
>
> >> I was ready a little while back but I found it hard to attract comment:
>

> >>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/t...

>
> >> I think it's cos Windsor is inherently more interesting than Pagination ;)
>

> >> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com>

> >> wrote:
> >> > I think it might be best hosting the downloads on sourceforge. This
> >> would
> >> > mean more people need write access to it. The main reason is that there
> >> is
> >> > actually heaps of bandwidth currently used for RC3. January 2009 had
> >> 42.9 GB
> >> > downloaded and I would expect that once there are more releases that is
> >> only
> >> > going to increase. Sourceforge has the infrastructure to handle the
> >> load.
>

> >>http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=124416&ugn=c...

>
> >> > I'd expect the package for MR to include AR and MK. For example, because
> >> the
> >> > current MR release might not yet be using the latest released AR. I can
> >> see
> >> > having a full castle package of the current releases that are all
> >> compatible
> >> > which you can just download and be done with it a really good idea.
>
> >> > When the first person is ready to release a project we will need to work
> >> out
> >> > what needs to go on the castle web site.
>

> >> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Colin Ramsay <colinram...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> We also need to decide/find out where downloads are going to be hosted.
>
> >> >> My other slight concern is how to createa synchronised download for
> >> >> people who want a "full suite" of Castle stuff. For example, if we all
> >> >> release separately then a user would have to download all the
> >> >> Components separately, then MR, then Windsor, etc, etc. I know this
> >> >> isn't specific to Windsor but I wanted to raise it anyway.
>

> >> >> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com>

> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Can we make a decision about version numbers for the next release.
>

> >> >> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com>

> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> :)
>
> >> >> >> We'll I was close, it was about going with DP 2.1 instead of 2.0.
> >> I'd
> >> >> >> expect you'd want to follow the same convention for the rest of the
> >> >> >> projects. However, maybe not.
>
> >> >> >> These are 2 quotes from a discussion about releasing DP 2.0:
>
> >> >> >>> AFAIC DP2 was released on the last RC. So you're looking into 2.1
> >> or
> >> >> >>> 2.0.1
>
> >> >> >>> I'd vote for 2.1
> >> >> >>> 2.0 is very stable.
>

> >>http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/thr...

>
> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:26 AM, hammett <hamm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> I have no recollection of saying that :-)
>

> >> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com

[Jonathon Rossi]

Agreed. Once we get started with projects having regular releases it will be smoother. It is just up to someone to start :)

Does anyone else (including other projects leaders) have an opinion on where we should store the downloads (sf.net is good because we don't need to worry about FTP access to the cp site).

Also what is everyone's opinion on version numbers for the next releases.

--
Jono

[Ayende Rahien]

I can provide an S3 account to put them there.

1.5 ? 

[Jonathon Rossi]

I think S3 will start costing you quite a bit in bandwidth though, that's why I suggested sf.net.

1.5 for everything, except 2.5 for DP? Sounds alright.

We can use the sf.net announcements mailing list for its real purpose now?

--
Jono

[Krzysztof Kozmic]

I'm not a commiter, but I'll say what I think nonetheless ;)

 

seeing 1.5 might be confusing to people, considering there never was an official v1.0 release.

 

I think better option would be to set assembly versions to something like 1.0.9.0 and officially call it v1.0 release.

 

If we go for 1.5 I think a page on the Wiki explaining why 1rc3 jumped right on to 1.5 should be created to clarify that for people.

And of course a lot of blogposts explaining this as well.

 

just my $0.02

 

Krzysztof

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete all copies of this message and notify the sender immediately by return mail or fax ATSI S.A.(+4812) 285 36 04. Any email attachment may contain software viruses which could damage your own computer system. Whilst reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should therefore carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachments.

[Markus Zywitza]

I second that.

Castle as a release containing all projects is dead, long live the
separate projects. All released projects should use 1.0 and then take
up their own path.(DP2 will of course rather use 2.0)

For AR, im planning 1.0 FINAL for GA of NH2.1 and then update this
release as 1.x with newer NH versions while preparing some major
changes in trunk for 2.0.

-Markus

2009/2/19 Krzysztof Kozmic <KKo...@atsisa.com>:

[Ken Egozi]

+1 for 1.0.x (or 2.0.x for DP, etc.)
+1 for free hosting (either sf.net, or better yet google code)

[Jonathon Rossi]

At least the v1.5 comment stirred up some discussion so we can make a decision :)

I am now also leaning towards 1.0, which everyone can move away from as they make more releases.

We should probably create a page on the castle site that lists all the projects that will ship separately with their current stable and beta/RC version (either RC3, Trunk-only or a new release), as well as the next version (and possibility a release date). This would give everyone a good idea of what releases have been made and have links to download them directly.

--
Jono

[hammett]

I can give sf.net access. Just send me an email.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Jonathon Rossi <jo...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
> At least the v1.5 comment stirred up some discussion so we can make a
> decision :)

--
Cheers,
hammett
http://hammett.castleproject.org/

[Krzysztof Kozmic]

>>> jo...@jonorossi.com 2009-02-19 23:07 >>>

At least the v1.5 comment stirred up some discussion so we can make a decision :)

I am now also leaning towards 1.0, which everyone can move away from as they make more releases.

We should probably create a page on the castle site that lists all the projects that will ship separately with their current stable and beta/RC version (either RC3, Trunk-only or a new release), as well as the next version (and possibility a release date). This would give everyone a good idea of what releases have been made and have links to download them directly.

 

I second that. This is much needed in order to mitigate confusion and tro give clear signal that Castle is not dead (as one of my colleagues asked me recently.)

 

Krzysztof

[Jonathon Rossi]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Krzysztof Kozmic <KKo...@atsisa.com> wrote:

I second that. This is much needed in order to mitigate confusion and tro give clear signal that Castle is not dead (as one of my colleagues asked me recently.)

I just added a quickly created project status listing (/castle/projects.html; not sure if cp.org has a scheduled update task). I also added a link on the home page, but we should probably add it to the top nav bar when it contains what we want.

--
Jono

[Grzegorz Sobanski]

* Krzysztof Kozmic <KKo...@atsisa.com> [2009-02-19 16:39]:

> I'm not a commiter, but I'll say what I think nonetheless ;)

I'm just a small user of castle...

> seeing 1.5 might be confusing to people, considering there never was an official v1.0 release.

...but I don't think releasing 1.0 now is a good idea.
1.5 or even 2.0 would be better.

It's because RC3 was there for a looong time, and a lot (A LOT)
has changed in the projects. Even APIs are not the same, etc, etc.
Going from 1.0rc3 to 1.0 is a step that suggest it is API compatible,
and only contains bugfixes.

I would acknowledge that rc3 was de facto 1.0 and was used as such,
and release 1.5.

HTH
silk

[Jonathon Rossi]

Grzegorz makes the same valid point Ayende and I have made during this discussion. I think we are going to need some sort of consensus to decide where we want to go with version numbers:

a) 1.0
b) 1.1
c) 1.5
d) something else

1.5 does seem logical because the trunk has moved on quite a lot from RC3 (1.5yrs ago), I'm sure many people think of RC3 as the unofficial 1.0. Going with 1.5 would avoid the confusion people will have thinking they can easily upgrade from 1.0 RC3.

Thoughts?
Votes (in a separate thread?)

--
Jono

[Ayende Rahien]

I think we should vote, yes, and I suggest adding 2.0 as well.

This is not just a point release.

[Krzysztof Kozmic]

This definatelly is not a point release.

My concern is, about how it would look like, if there was a 2.0 release, when there never was a v1.0.

 

That's why I suggested sticking to v1.0. Grzegorz however brought up very valid point, so I'd proceed one of two ways:

 

- stick to v1.0 for common sense sake.

- call it v2.0 and create a page describing (and mention on blogs) why we skipped version one.

>>> aye...@ayende.com 2009-02-23 15:34:26 >>>

[Julian Birch]

It also has the advantage of synchronizing with the DP version number.

Microsoft went from Word 2 to Word 6.  I don't think anyone will much mind.

Julian.

2009/2/23 Krzysztof Kozmic <KKo...@atsisa.com>