geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Subject Re: Geronimo 2.0
Date Sun, 08 Jan 2006 16:47:21 GMT
Hash: SHA1

David Blevins wrote, On 1/6/2006 3:24 PM:
> On Jan 6, 2006, at 11:10 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> Either I don't understand what is being proposed or I think it is a 
>> recipe for disaster.
>> My past experience with open source projects leads me to believe  that
>> having more than one main development area that is leading to  a
>> release is likely to cause only confusion, not progress towards 
>> functionality.
>> In my opinion if we call head 2.0 and start adding JEE 5 features  to
>> it, there will never be any more j2ee 1.4 releases with added 
>> functionality.  We will have a couple bug fix 1.0 releases, then a 
>> year or so while we try to finish JEE 5.  I don't think this is 
>> acceptable.
> Amen!
> We can't go from two years of development on 1.x with little to no  user
> interaction then abandon it after the first release and go back  into
> the development hole.  We need to follow through on Geronimo 1.x  for a
> few release cycles, get some user feedback, learn the lessons  we need
> to learn for a while, *then* start Geronimo 2.0.
> Now is not the time to turn our focus to the next shinny ball, now is 
> the time to focus on users of 1.x as they will need our dedication 
> before they can bring it into production.


I don't think that anyone is advocating the abandonment of 1.x.  I think
we are merely acknowledging the fact that a lot of people will want to
work on, to use your choice of words, the next shinny ball.  You can't
control what people want to work on.  We can control how it's done so
that we can minimized the impact on 1.x branch.

This was the reason for my initial email.


Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -


View raw message