geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: 1.1 Status and Questions
Date Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:40:32 GMT
I have been thinking about this.  I am very concerned that if we  
merge 1.1 into HEAD we will break the build for a week or two.  Our  
history is that we when the build is broken people continue to work  
and we quickly drift from compliance.

I like this plan but I'd like to modify it a bit.

* Freeze HEAD asap... move all work to 1.1 with a focus releasing it
* Once 1.1 is released we start moving feature from the old HEAD  
(1.2) branch to new 1.2
     * Noone is allowed to break the build
     * We keep TCK stat at all passed at all times
     * The server is always in a releasable state

If we had that we could have good nightly releases for our users  
which reduces the report/fix/test cycle.  This will also allow us to  
change our release policy to be time boxed (say every 4 weeks).

I think we are in the ditch again due to the major rearchitecture  
David and I did.  Regardless of this being a good or bad solution we  
are 3+ months from the last release and the is unacceptable.


On Apr 12, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

> Would it be easier to merge trunk modifications into 1.1 branch ?
> It seems most of the changes have been made into 1.1 ...
> This can be done by hacking a bit the branches i guess:
>  * creating a 1.2 branch from 1.1 one
>  * merge trunk into 1.2
>  * rename trunk to something
>  * rename 1.2 to trunk
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> All,
>> I see that there has been a good amount of work on 1.1 so far in  
>> terms of testing, etc.  Can everyone who is actively working on  
>> 1.1 reply back to this note on what area your focusing?  Also, if  
>> your not working on 1.1 do you have some bandwidth?  Once we get  
>> 1.1 out the door we need to start the merge into Trunk so its in  
>> our interest to get 1.1 done as quickly as we can.
>> Matt

View raw message