Well, I've accepted all along that I have more things I want to get in than most people.  I don't think there's widespread agreement to hold the branch until I'm done.  At some point it will go into a real freeze mode and then I'll stop wherever I am.  :)

Still, there are 78 JIRAs marked for M5, so someone ought to go through those and decide which should be put off until M6.


On 9/19/05, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
On 9/19/2005 8:23 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 9/19/05, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
Agreed, bug fixes we do put into both branches.  However, Aaron is
talking about features, IIUC.

Just to be succinct, my -1 is a real technical veto on adding features,
not bug fixes, to both branches; though I am not intransigent and am
willing to discuss it further.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, since I don't think I really said what I was talking about.  But here's an example:

 - Adding the management API for server logs.  Without this, the console screen breaks if the Jetty GBean name is changed, and Tomcat does not work.

Now this is kind of a new feature, but kind of a bug fix too.  I'd be inclined to put it in, since I think we'd like Tomcat to be fairly well supported, and the current code is arguably broken.

Some of the other JIRA's on my M5 list are:
 - make the server require an argument if you want to give a list of Configurations to start on the command line
 - make the deployer require an argument if you want it to run in offline mode
 - invalid references in deployment plan should give meaningful error message to deployer
 - breakage if more than one configuration manager found
 - installer needs to be updated to reflect current product configuration options

This is a lot of work to add to two branches.  Maybe we cut the branch too early.