Re: [abc] nice paper! :)

Very good ... can we aim for a 0.9.2 ???? and at the same time make
a list for 1.0?

Cheers, Laurie

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Laurie Hendren, Professor, School of Computer Science |
| McGill University |
| 318 McConnell Engineering Building tel: (514) 398-7391 |
| 3480 University Street fax: (514) 398-3883 |
| Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7 hendren@cs.mcgill.ca |
| CANADA http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/~hendren |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Pavel Avgustinov wrote:

> 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 23:41:13 2004