Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer;
  b=J2fv7YWe+bwxq/QAtqX22ce78337ofklZpAVeK/1xjr4s7AJ+9UKyHN+HlZXDTRUohm0NL0Tl4rdUOe95jkUEk2nKAcTPXlOzJ3Tawg3BtdJR71CcX7o74MbQKG2G4/cB1o/kL2BPqj8mqstku8zcE+fxRnTR8kSC1L2WiVv/8c=
  ;
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
In-Reply-To: <74e15baa0602020539v64037e7bv902306d1483d5a58@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43E19D46.2090104@hogstrom.org>
 <74e15baa0602020539v64037e7bv902306d1483d5a58@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <4B78D9D5-A577-4589-BC22-61D6B8CFB56F@yahoo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 1.0.1 Release and the configId issue
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:17:15 -0800
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

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