FW: [Nexus-developers] FW: RE: NAPI 3.0 beta projected release - May 20, 2005

[Peterson, Peter F.]

Nick,

Depending on what you mean by beta you could actually release 3.0beta
next week (the original date if I recall correctly). I've always
interpreted beta as "works but there are some possible bugs". This is
where the mwxml stands. The NXU API pushing things back into alpha or
CVS only territory though. For this reason I suggest that the API falls
back to option 2 (your numbering) so we can get that nasty "HDF5 bugfix
breaks our code" thing dealt with. I'm saying this with very little idea
of how much work needs to be done to hide the new stuff from the
release.

On the topic of whether or not to drop the beta from the 3.0 name: The
reason for naming it beta was to allow releasing it before we have a
full SQA plan implemented and applied to the code. If it is the groups
opinion that the SQA plan is solid (needs to be on the website) and the
code passes it then I am fine with the decision. Otherwise, we'd be
better off waiting a week or so before releasing it.

P^2

-----Original Message-----
From: nexus-developers-bounces at anl.gov
[mailto:nexus-developers-bounces at anl.gov] On Behalf Of Nick Maliszewskyj
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 8:02 AM
To: Ray Osborn
Cc: Nexus-Developers at anl.gov
Subject: Re: [Nexus-developers] FW: RE: NAPI 3.0 beta projected release
- May 20, 2005

Greetings everybody,

 From what I gather at least two of the major features in the changes
list I synopsized last week (XML support and complete implementation in
C of the NXU utility) are in a state which may take a few weeks to sort
out.

At this point I feel that it's important to get some form of release out
in the short term, if only to address known bugs. I see there are two
possible options:

   1) push back the release date for 3.0 (nix the
      beta, per Mark) by a few weeks (Is that enough?) or
   2) assemble what there is right now, minus the XML/NXU support
      to release a 2.1, with the 3.0 to be released shortly thereafter

Personally, I'm in favor option #1 if those who are actually doing the
work don't mind the heat. I'm even in a position to help out a little.

Regarding mxml, requiring mxml < 2.2 is not unreasonable. This sort of
dependency is not unusual so long as 2.1 remains available.

Nick

Ray Osborn wrote:

>>From: Mark Koennecke [mailto:Mark.Koennecke at psi.ch]
>>Subject: Re: [Nexus-developers] RE: NAPI 3.0 beta projected release - 
>>May 20,
>>2005
>>
>>High everyone,
>>
>>concerning 3.0. The anomaly with XML reported by Ray and (privately) 
>>by Freddy is fixed (in my copy). Mxml 2.2 handles the ?xml tag 
>>differently then the older mxml versions.
>>    
>>
>
>Hi Mark,
>Did you need to fix MXML or NAPI?  If the problem is with MXML, can we 
>fix it by requiring everyone to install an earlier version (2.1?)?  If 
>not, we will have to wait for the author of MXML to release a fix 
>before we release an XML version of NAPI.
>
>Best regards,
>Ray
>  
>

--
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
o Dr. Nicholas C. Maliszewskyj
o Center for Neutron Research
o National Institute of Standards & Technology o 100 Bureau Drive, Stop
8562 o Gaithersburg MD 20899-8562
o nickm at nist.gov     Phone: (301)975-3171    Fax: (301)921-9847
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo




_______________________________________________
NeXus-developers mailing list
NeXus-developers at anl.gov
http://www.neutron.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nexus-developers