geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <djen...@gluecode.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Next milestone release (M4?)
Date Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:24:52 GMT
I will -1 any milestone release proposal until these issues are taken 
care of in a way I consider satisfactory:

1. circular build dependencies between openejb and geronimo.  I've 
proposed a simple solution that would not involve moving any code and 
will repeat the suggestion if requested.  A better solution would move 
assembly out of modules.

2. dependence on privately patched jars or even snapshots of other 
projects.  Currently the only private patch I know of is of Jetty and I 
hope to resolve this shortly.  I would definitely prefer that we 
minimize the number of snapshots of other projects, especially axis.

In addition I would prefer that we move to xmlbeans 2 or provide a 
convincing argument why not.

thanks
david jencks

On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

>
> On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:33 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 29, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>>
>>>> -1
>>>>
>>>
>>> We'll ignore this as it isn't a vote :)
>>>
>>>> Whilst I agree with the intention, we do not have a process defined 
>>>> that  would allow us to generate a reproducable release. This led 
>>>> to several of the issues with the last M3 release that ultimately 
>>>> made is unusable.  We must fix this before we can release another 
>>>> version.
>>>>
>>>> Specific things I think we need include in such a process:
>>>> * an mechanical process for producing the candidate binaries that 
>>>> can be
>>>>   executed against any SVN tag. This would reduce the potential for
>>>>   minor variations by people doing the release that would result in
>>>>   potentially different binaries
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>>> * elimination of SNAPSHOT dependencies - these are by nature 
>>>> ephemeral
>>>>   making it impossible to later regenerate the same distribution
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>>> * a testing/review period that is at least comprehensive enough to 
>>>> catch
>>>>   the blaring defects that plagued M3
>>>
>>>
>>> yes
>>>
>>>>
>>>> * verification that the src bundle actually builds and results in 
>>>> the
>>>>   same binary as we are distibuting
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>> All of these were the standard way for other projects I've been 
>>> involved with.  No argument.
>>>
>>> But can we, with this in mind, first discuss going forward w/ a 
>>> release?  We're going to have to bang out a real release process for 
>>> 1.0, and this is a good opportunity to get started.  I volunteer to 
>>> help.
>>
>>
>> Is now a good time to talk about how Geornimo needs its own remote 
>> maven repo?
>
> Heh.  I was just thinking about that, and also about the subject of 
> OpenEJB - would there be good benefit into bringing it to Geronimo?  
> We seem to be so interdependent...
>
> geir
>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>


Mime
View raw message