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: Geronimo 2.0
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:56:31 GMT
Once I finish the suddenly-urgent mountain of book work, I have a lot
more console and management stuff to work on.  There's no reason that
has to wait for a rewritten CORBA stack, EJB3 container, security
stack, etc., much less all the new specs and JSRs.  So I certainly
plan to contribute to a 1.1 release.  (I'm not sure whether new
Jetspeed/Pluto integration would fit into 1.1 or 2.0, though 1.1 would
be nice.)

I'd prefer to see us draw up as much of a feature list as we can for
1.1 and 2.0, and then based on those think about where we want to put
things and how we branch.  That may also suggest a time frame for
each.

Aaron

On 1/6/06, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> 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.
>
> I would like to propose a process by which disruptive new feature
> development occurs in separate subprojects or feature-specific
> branches that can be merged into trunk when feature complete and stable.
>
> I realize there are some significant problems with this as regards
> JEE 5, at least as far as jdk support level, in that JEE 5 requires
> use of jdk 1.4 incompatible code.  Personally I don't have enough
> information about how hard it is to convert to generics to begin to
> guess what these problems might be.  It would also be useful to know
> more about e.g. whether retrotranslator might actually work.
>
> I think in order to consider this realistically we need a list of
> features we plan to add and to decide for each one of them whether it
> requires jdk 1.5 support and whether it can fit into "1.0".  For
> instance I think the proposed security improvements could fit into
> 1.0 written in jdk 1.4.
>
> At this point, I think we should label head 1.1-SNAPSHOT and work on
> any features that require 1.5 in one or more branches, labelled by
> feature.
>
> I also think we need to decide on and publish criteria for including
> bug fixes in 1.0.1, and indeed if we want to release a 1.0.1 or just
> go for 1.1.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Matt Hogstrom wrote, On 1/6/2006 7:07 AM:
> >> I'll summarize what I think I read.
> >>
> >> HEAD will be 2.0 which includes JEE 5 and other significant work
> >> (Maven
> >> 2 conversion, etc.)
> >>
> >> Branches/1.0 will be where the work for 1.0.x will take place.  It
> >> would
> >> be from this code base we'd branch to a 1.1 when appropriate.
> >
> > So, we would eventually have 2 branches and 1 trunk:
> >
> > branches/1.0
> > branches/1_trunk
> > tags/*
> > trunk
> >
> >> I'm updating my local copy of the branches/1.0 with a version
> >> change for
> >> Geronimo to 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT as well as updating to Tomcay 5.1.15 and
> >> Jetty 5.1.10 to incoroporate the latent fixes.
> >>
> >> I'll build and test to make sure its still working (I'm not going
> >> to run
> >> TCK). and then commit these changes back when I've confirmed we're
> >> ready
> >> to go for 1.0.1.  Does this sound workable?
> >
> > Can we have jira issues assigned to 1.0.1 so that we can see what's
> > coming down the pipeline?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFDvqSa1xC6qnMLUpYRArhpAJ91d5cSrHGEsY0pG6Jf+Nb+9gNuSgCfR8gH
> > m3qYJWEG9Zej/Sg+O5pMPQA=
> > =goh1
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message