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: [VOTE] 1.0.1 Release and the configId issue
Date Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:04:07 GMT
If we are going to do a 1.0.1, I think the least intrusive approach is
to use "1.0" in all the configIds for 1.0.1, which will require a fair
amount of XML work, but few or no code changes.

If this is too much work to be considered for 1.0.1, then I vote to
abandon 1.0.x.  What's the point of a maintenance release that isn't
backward compatible?

Thanks,
    Aaron

On 2/2/06, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'd like to see those who vote -1 or "other" provide a suggestion for
> a technical solution for the 1.0 branch, an explanation of how it
> fits into the notion of a third-digit "critical bug fixes only" point
> release, a suggested schedule for implementation, and a suggestion of
> who will work on it.  I'm also curious as to whether the suggested
> solution is intended to be compatible with 1.0, a future 1.1 release,
> or both.
>
> I may sound snippy here, in which case I apologize.  However, I
> haven't seen anything that I consider realistic planning for getting
> this into 1.0.1.  The proposals (mostly dain's) that I have seen and
> that I think might work involve major changes to a lot of the basic
> plumbing of geronimo and are IMNSHO wholly inappropriate to a 1.x.y
> release.  Frankly, I think a -1 means a vote to abandon any 1.0.x
> releases.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Feb 2, 2006, at 5:39 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> > On 2/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >> [ ] +1 Document issue in release notes and defer fix to 1.1
> >> [ ] 0  Not that important one way or another
> >> [X] -1 This is an issue that must be resolved in the 1.0.x branch
> >> [ ] Other...provide your reasons.
> >
> > Aaron
>
>

Mime
View raw message