Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer;
  b=B6gMLVHLuIGys7RZFQ6ZVW7PyARbdGqMSZPBWxgo4XeNH55Ho5UH+G70eHP+Lh/TEzSxUwu+KHoPW2fjZdwSKofN7zATjvxIXgKg+xGA+uUKDcCGPLCYLE26yG5TmcWlKwTTvevH9r+3PrGlQ600cNj+WESyziv69K+aUGE2lS0=
  ;
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622)
In-Reply-To: <1D6B2AA8-BF05-4F09-AB5F-38B2CB7BCB68@apache.org>
References: <02A1A663-0DC1-45AD-BB21-39328834AF6B@apache.org>
 <20050531232121.GB7690@django> <20050531234000.GC7690@django>
 <a9d94d921eb377a1a1bf285f3e045191@yahoo.com>
 <1D6B2AA8-BF05-4F09-AB5F-38B2CB7BCB68@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <273de33478fb02d0c830cefd62ddccbe@yahoo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 19:48:49 -0700
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org


On May 31, 2005, at 5:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

>
> On May 31, 2005, at 8:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> (reordered)
>>
>>> 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 killed with "PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL 
>>>> AFTER CERTIFICATION."
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
> if that happens, w/o a stable area, we have to put all changes except 
> certification related changes on hold until we pass.
>
> right?

Not really, I think anything we agree should be in our actual first 
certified release can be added.  For instance I'd like to see Jeremy's 
configuration and assembly plugins get to a working state and be used 
for the build.  There are a couple of other changes I have in mind that 
dont affect tests passing but improve the structure or usability.  
There's at least one patch (servlet start order) I want to apply soon.

thanks
david jencks

>
> geir
>
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>