geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Date Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:10:09 GMT
> Just going to throw out that I think the only goal we can all agree on 
> is to not regress on certification once we achieve it.

I certainly hope we agree on this :-) but hope we can find more to 
agree on.

On May 31, 2005, at 4:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:21:21PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:50:43AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> Can we agree that we need to somehow construct the stable, unstable
>>> and sandbox codebases?
>> I don't think we have agreed on what is stable and what is unstable.  
>> We were having a discussion on the fact that it is now impossible to 
>> offer a stable upgrade/patch path for applications.  That thread was 
>> Now Jeremy has proposed that we ignore that discussion and begin 
>> cementing what we currently have as stable.  How is that at all fair?

I don't know about fair, but I am finding this discussion nearly as 
distracting as the previous one that we put on hold.  I still don't see 
what exotic svn tricks might buy us over normal svn usage, and don't 
want to spend a lot of time thinking about it until we pass all the 
tests.  I still think everyones perspective may change once we are 
passing all the tests and have fixed the few egregious architectural 
problems that crept in.

I would like to put this discussion on hold until we pass all the tests

david jencks

> -David

View raw message