Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 22934 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2005 18:10:14 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Mar 2005 18:10:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 44959 invoked by uid 500); 29 Mar 2005 18:10:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 44917 invoked by uid 500); 29 Mar 2005 18:10:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 44895 invoked by uid 99); 29 Mar 2005 18:10:07 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.2 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from ss53.shared.server-system.net (HELO ss53.shared.server-system.net) (72.10.34.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:10:05 -0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (66-108-84-172.nyc.rr.com [66.108.84.172]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by ss53.shared.server-system.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j2TIA1j16010 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:10:01 -0800 Message-ID: <424999EA.7050206@toolazydogs.com> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:09:46 -0500 From: "Alan D. Cabrera" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Next milestone release (M4?) References: <56FDD27E-A05C-11D9-9D66-000A95D41A40@apache.org> <424976DD.5040109@apache.org> <0CA45576-A06D-11D9-9D66-000A95D41A40@apache.org> <42498353.2080602@toolazydogs.com> <21f564c36ff8033fed4af889f3f0e81c@gluecode.com> In-Reply-To: <21f564c36ff8033fed4af889f3f0e81c@gluecode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 1. Agreed. This should be a non-issue shortly. 2. This is a tall order, IMHO. I think that this is a goal that should be vigorously sought but I don't think that it should stop a milestone release. Maybe a v1.0 release, I'll grant you that. Regards, Alan David Jencks wrote: > 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 >>