geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Module restructure
Date Tue, 31 May 2005 13:43:41 GMT

On May 30, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

>
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 5/30/2005 10:43 PM:
>
>
>> On May 30, 2005, at 4:25 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The problem we have currently is that there is no continuity   
>>> between our releases - the APIs, deployment plans, etc. have all   
>>> changed incompatibly between them.  This was fine with  
>>> milestones;  however, when we do a production release users need  
>>> to have  confidence that things won't break with the next one.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ah we finally get to the root of what you are talking about.  I   
>> believe that if we address this issue directly the technical   
>> structure of the svn tree will be obvious.
>>
>
> I agree, it makes no sense in talking about the how until we iron  
> out the what.

So lets do that.

Jeremy was proposing distinguishing between "stable" - where the  
focus is getting to the next release - and "unstable" - where things  
unrelated to linear progress to a release are done.

First - do we agree this is a good thing?

Second - if we do agree, besides the suggestion of separate roots  
("stable", "unstable", "downright_wacky" (nee "sandbox")), what other  
approaches are there?

>
>
>> Said another way, the  technical discussion of the svn tree will  
>> never get anywhere without  addressing this core issue first.
>>
>
> I think that Jeremy's point is one part of the discussion.  The  
> other is how do we break up Geronimo so that people can mix and  
> match pieces and still get a stable, functioning, product.
>

lets solve this one first.  The other follows after that, IMO.

geir

>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



Mime
View raw message