geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: Preparation for M4
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:32:39 GMT
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:28:56PM -0600, Jeff Genender wrote:
> +1 for Jetty as default (at least until Tomcat does a TCK dance)...but I 
> think we should have a seperate build for each.

Agreed on both points.


> 
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >	I guess we should also decide whether to make Jetty or Tomcat the 
> >default container, and whether to provide separate builds for each.
> >
> >	Also, we need to decide whether we're planning to run the entire 
> >TCK on the candidate configuration(s).
> >
> >Aaron
> >
> >On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 06:38:23PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> >>
> >>>David Blevins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:22:36PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>David Blevins wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Anything I missed?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>SNAPSHOT elimination so the build is reproducible.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Right.  Missed that one for M3 IIRC.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Branch so that M4 can stabilize whilst other changes are being made.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>We do for every milestone.  Don't expect this to be different.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Acceptance test process - how do we know what works (need to avoid
a 
> >>>>>broken release like M3).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>That's what I meant by:
> >>>>
> >>>>DB> We have a number of people interested in testing.  I'll ping
> >>>>DB> them when I have something ready.
> >>>>
> >>>>Was thinking to branch when I dish out the binaries for testing.
> >>>>Rather than the "surprise, here is a binary" approach we've done in
> >>>>the past.  Sounds pretty much like what you are proposing as well.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Yes - in the past we've just tagged and moved on. This time I think we 
> >>>should create the branch at the start of the process rather than at the 
> >>>end as there seem to be a lot of pent up changes planned. Yes, we may 
> >>>need to merge some critical changes back to this branch but hopefully 
> >>>this can be kept to a minimum.
> >>>
> >>>So basically,
> >>>* create a branch now, say 1.0-M4-prep
> >>>* do the stuff we talking about now on that branch
> >>>* cut the final M4 distro
> >>>* drop the 1.0-M4-prep branch
> >>>
> >>>Other work can continue on the trunk without destablizing the M4 release.
> >>>
> >>
> >>+1 That's pretty much what I had in mind.
> >>
> >>
> >>-David
> >>

Mime
View raw message