geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Disagreements regarding inclusion of Tomcat/Jetty Picker in M4 QA branch
Date Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:21:37 GMT
I think you need to add an option to the vote to distribute the same
Tomcat/Jetty options we offered in M3.  Namely:

 - Install Jetty only

 - Install with the install package, choose to install both Jetty and
   Tomcat.  I'm not sure what happens to web apps you try to deploy,
   though surely we could figure it out.  :)

 - Manually customize server plans (which is complex and you don't get the 
   final plans in the binary), undeploy the J2EE server, and redeploy a 
   new J2EE server minus Jetty plus Tomcat.

Also, I think anyone who votes +1 for creating a new branch is committing 
to work on creating a new OpenEJB branch too and/or updating the OpenEJB 
branch to point to the new Geronimo branch (remember, +1 involves an 
implicit agreement to help!).  It sounds like there will also be some TCK 
re-running involved too.

Thanks,
	Aaron

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 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.
> 

Mime
View raw message