Re: [abc] nice paper! :)

I thought we agreed to "go public" a while ago, when we removed the
sentence on the front page asking people to keep the web site secret?
And aiming to place it high on google for "aspectj" isn't conductive to
secrecy...

I agree with Oege that the 1.0 release should show some level of
maturity and also have some features we've been trying to get around to
for a while that will set it off from the 0.9x line. Javadoc and other
documentation would of course be great for 1.0. This should also (I
think) be the release we announce on aspectj-users.

I agree with Laurie that we should have a release with the points she
mentions for her trip to CASCON next week. It would be nice to be able
to present a fresh release of abc (although not necessarily 1.0) and
tell people to try it out.

It seems that the solution that will please most people is a 0.9.2
release next Tuesday or Wednesday, with the most urgent and doable
things done. Apart from that, concentrate on the outstanding issues for
1.0 and (of course, inevitably) the CC paper.

- P

Prof. Laurie HENDREN wrote:

>Last message was about the paper .... no disagreements there ....
>
>Now about the release ....
>
>If I understand it correctly, Oege would like to stay at our 0.9x
>status, and not rush for a 1.0 release, but concentrate on other things,
>which I also agree are important.
>
>That's ok with me if as long as it's a public 0.9x, i.e. I can give
>people our URL (in a talk) and tell them to try it and report any
>problems they have. Then it's just a matter of what we call
>the "real" release. I think as long as the version number is < 1,
>people should expect to have to report bugs.
>
>I think for this status we could try do the relatively small items I have
>on the Wiki TODO list.
>
>However, I really do want people to be able to try it out and let us know
>how they are getting along. So, we have to agree on the "public" status
>of our 0.9x releases.
>
>
>Cheers, Laurie
>
>
>
>>I'm sorry, but I'm firmly of the opinion we're not ready for
>>a release. Quite understandably, after the IBM visit we have
>>slowed down a lot. Before we release, we should
>>
>>a) compile abc itself (so it is really possible to use aspects
>> for extension if people want to do that - it's not just
>> a fun meta-circular thing).
>>
>>b) compile atrack, or at least fix all the problems that
>> Ondrej has found
>>
>>c) pepper the source with javadoc. It is very sparse at
>> the moment, and I do not believe the source is of
>> use outside our team in its present form.
>>
>>While I'm really happy with how far we've got, it is a fact
>>that, even for a simple program like my ants viewer, there
>>were several things that needed fixing in abc before it could
>>be compiled. No pathological corner cases: a real program.
>>We have to have more confidence that abc won't break on
>>the first sizable example people try.
>>
>>Now of course we *could* race to bring out a release by CASCON,
>>and if we're lucky we'll get real users and umpteen bug reports
>>to fix that same week. Now we have to ask ourselves whether
>>that is the best use of a team that is going to drop in manpower
>>a lot as of next week, when term starts and several of the
>>Oxford gang have to go back (at least part-time :-))
>>to being undergrads.
>>
>>I think it is far more productive to get on quietly with
>>a-c) above, the CC paper, and most importantly with re-weaving.
>>That was the crucial idea that started all this in January;
>>it got lost in the development fever but fortunately Ondrej
>>insisted on getting back to it. We have to get it ready for
>>PLDI. The realisation of re-weaving will underlie lots of our
>>future plans, and it will be a big boost to our chances of
>>continuing the project if we have demonstrated it works. I
>>don't think a release would have the same impact.
>>
>>Sorry for a long email. Obviously it's important we make the
>>right strategic step now, with the very limited resources we've
>>got.
>>
>>-Oege
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Sep 28 23:32:14 2004