geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <>
Subject Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:04:58 GMT

On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:

> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards  
> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be  
> reasons to wait a couple more days.  There are 2 features that  
> people want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation)  
> that I would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed in  
> any case before the release.  I think that unless someone is  
> waiting to get a new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should  
> wait until monday and see where we are.
> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code  
> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.

Along with your list in the initial thread, we need to deal with the  
BouncyCastle situation, since we need to stop shipping this jar.  The  
status quo is unacceptable because of the patent encumbrance of IDEA  
and therefore the liability that could be accidentally triggered.   
Rick has done some great work on hunting this down. (http:// I think the fix is easy  
on our side - we can just change the keystore portlet to detect BC  
and do something different if not there (like show a page telling  
user where to get it if they want it, etc...)  but right now, we need  
OpenEJB to remove the dependency.  For OpenEJB, I think there are two  
aspects - the inclusion of IDEA in the SSLCipherSuite list (modules/ 
and it's usage of the ASN1 codec.  I don't know what they (OpenEJB)  
want to do there - it's been suggested that the necessary code can be  
copied (it's under a modified X.Net-ish license) or Directory could  
be enhanced and used.  It seems the former is simpler.

Ideas?  (No pun intended...)


> thanks
> david jencks
> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote  
>> on it...
>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>> For me:
>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>>     What is the point of the "frozen list"?  At this point, it   
>>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that  
>>>>> aren't  on the list.
>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5.  If something   
>>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine.  We need a   
>>>> closure date at this point.  I think we have all agreed what is   
>>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>>>     Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code  
>>>>> not on
>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing   
>>>>> period to
>>>>> resolve the list items.  There is a lot on the list, so that  
>>>>> would  mean a
>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold  
>>>>> off on
>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward  
>>>>> greater  stability in the mean time.
>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday?  Anhyone have any issues with  
>>>> this?   I am game.
>>> Friday is great.  Aaron expressed the same concern I was  
>>> thinking  about; getting further and further from stable the long  
>>> we wait to  branch.  Things always tend to creep in.
>>> +1
>>> David

Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message