geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: Disagreements regarding inclusion of Tomcat/Jetty Picker in M4 QA branch
Date Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:44:38 GMT

On the specific issue of Tomcat/Jetty picker .... I'm not sure that I 
follow all of the arguments
for or against it.  IMHO it isn't that large of an issue be it in M4 or 
M5.  The only users affected
would be those who require Tomcat and I don't imagine (although I could 
be wrong) that this
is a large number.  Also those who do require Tomcat are already 
accustomed to making
the numerous changes so this won't be a "new pain point" if not delivered. 
I think the most important thing (as several folks have already 
mentioned) is to
*get M4 committed and out the door*.  We should take whatever path 
assures us
that M4 will not be delayed.

Regarding the discussion on milestone criteria ... I agree that we need 
to define the criteria
ahead of time.  However, there also needs to be a little bit of 
pragmatism in there too.
If some function isn't ready in time we will have to make the call to 
either delay the delivery
or deliver w/o the function.  It really depends upon the impact to the 
users and the
pain that is caused by either delaying a delivery or dropping a planned 
function.   I think
in general that the most important thing is to show regular, forward 
progress and a clear
plan for the future. 

Jeff Genender wrote:

> Ok...if we are in favor of an August M5, then I am cool with this.
>
> I want to point out a little history to understand why there is some 
> passion in getting this into M4.
>
> My understanding about M(X), is the M stands for Milestone.  I believe 
> that you hit a milestone based on a set of criteria.  I not only 
> understood that we had concensus that this would be a part of 
> milestone 4 and thus fit the criteria, but I was specifically asked by 
> one of the committers on the project to get it done fast so it can be 
> in M4.  I worked very hard to get this out.  It was somewhat 
> disconcerting to me that this got kicked back to M5 after all of 
> this...as I could have taken my time.
>
> I would only ask that A) M5 come in a relative short time period...and 
> more importantly, that B) we decide ahead of time what is in the 
> milestone, and cut based on the milestone roadmap's requirements of 
> included options, as opposed by date.  Although it would seem that A 
> conflicts with B, it does not.  If we keep our list relatively short, 
> A will work with B.
>
> Finally, IMHO, there has been too much committer talk and decision on 
> this subject.  I really would love to hear what the community wants in 
> M4 and M5.  The community's voice should be the most important.
>
> Jeff
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I am extremely strongly in favor of only bug fixes for M4 and putting 
>> out M5 in mid august and 1.0 in mid sept.
>>
>> I'd like to point out that re-branching at this point is essentially 
>> abandoning M4 for M5.  I have committed substantial changes to head 
>> that are not yet necessarily completely stable and are also not quite 
>> complete.  If we rebranch, we won't be able to get the new M4.5 out 
>> before mid august anyway.
>>
>> I abandoned my hopes of getting all the work I am putting in head 
>> into M4: after some consideration I decided that it was more 
>> important to get M4 out than my favorite features in, even though I 
>> was sure they would not be destabilizing.  There's some difference in 
>> that my features have no discernable impact on the normal user, but 
>> still :-)
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2005, at 6:56 AM, sissonj@insession.com wrote:
>>
>>> On the Geronimo IRC channel there was talk about the Tomcat/Jetty 
>>> Picker
>>> not going in M4 because it is now involving more code changes than what
>>> people thought they had agreed to.  This was a surprise to me and after
>>> discussion it was proposed that I call for a vote.
>>>
>>> Before I do, I thought a little background might be helpful..
>>>
>>> Back in the mail thread "Preparation for M4 -- jetty vs tomcat or jetty
>>> and tomcat (two builds)" on 5th of July  it was agreed that there 
>>> would be
>>> a Tomcat and a Jetty build of Geronimo.
>>>
>>> In the mail thread "Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour 
>>> notice of
>>> branch)" on 9th of July, it appears nobody asked to hold off 
>>> creating the
>>> branch to do the work for the Tomcat / Jetty builds.  Maybe it was just
>>> assumed it was going to be simple changes in the branch, or it was
>>> forgotten.
>>>
>>> In the mail thread "M4 Status", started by Aaron on 18th July, he 
>>> said "I
>>> believe Jeff is working on separate plans for Tomcat and Jetty 
>>> builds, so
>>> we can produce two separate distributions as people seemed to 
>>> prefer." .
>>> Alan responded  "I think that the notion that adding new features 
>>> into a
>>> QA branch is a bad idea stands, regardless of how simple the changes 
>>> are
>>> and how simple it is to merge them.  It's simply bad form".  Alan then
>>> said "I'm not opposed to the what and why.  I am opposed to the how."
>>> David Jencks also agreed with Alan in the mail thread.
>>>
>>> So it seems that people are unhappy with the "how" as Alan said.
>>>
>>> Since it was already agreed that we are to have separate Tomcat and 
>>> Jetty
>>> builds in M4, that decision should not be questioned and as a reminder
>>> Jeff's changes have the following benefits:
>>>
>>> * Less user problems - the previous method of having to edit many 
>>> files is
>>> prone to failure, it caught me out many times, and I have seen 
>>> others get
>>> caught out!
>>> * We don't have to document the M4 way of configuring the web 
>>> containers
>>> and the M5 way of configuring.  This makes the instructions more
>>> complicated and makes it harder for other forms of documentation to 
>>> stay
>>> relevant (e.g. articles and Aaron's book).
>>> * Documentation does not have to be changed when we reach M5.
>>> * We are seen to be trying to minimise changes that impact 
>>> configuration
>>> between releases.
>>>
>>> Looking back, it appears we branched too early.
>>>
>>> I propose that we vote on the "how" with the following options:
>>>
>>>     a)  Merge Jeff's Tomcat/Jetty switch changes into the M4 QA branch
>>>
>>>     b)  Make a new Geronimo M4 QA and OpenEJB M4 QA branches from HEAD
>>> when it is stable.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
>>> proprietary or non-public information.  This information is intended
>>> solely for the designated recipient(s).  If an addressing or 
>>> transmission
>>> error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately
>>> and destroy this e-mail.  Any review, dissemination, use or reliance 
>>> upon
>>> this information by unintended recipients is prohibited.  Any opinions
>>> expressed in this e-mail are those of the author personally.
>>>
>
>

-- 
Joe Bohn     

joe.bohn@earthlink.net 
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."   -- Jim Elliot


Mime
View raw message