Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <44720AC2.4020308@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:02:26 -0600
From: Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org>
Reply-To: jgenender@apache.org
Organization: Apache Geronimo
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Macintosh/20060505)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Session API in 1.1 trunk?
References: <4471ECD8.60001@apache.org>
 <C793FB12-188A-4616-91F0-AD23DF77CBBD@yahoo.com>
 <8A544BD2-DD8C-48D6-A9EA-2DEFCF8EF839@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <8A544BD2-DD8C-48D6-A9EA-2DEFCF8EF839@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am just trying to be thorough.  I figured erring on the side of
caution was best...it made it clear, so nobody would take issue.

Thanks,

Jeff

David Jencks wrote:
> To clarify,
> +1 on new trunk after 1.1 is branched
> -1 on inclusion in 1.1 release.
> 
> I actually don't understand why a vote on this is required.  My
> understanding is that we have all already agreed that all new stuff in
> current trunk is part of future geronimo and the only question is when
> to merge it back into the new 1.1-based trunk.  This is already work we
> have approved of by commit-then-review, why does it need to be voted on?
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> On May 22, 2006, at 10:13 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> 
>> I'm fine with it going into trunk after 1.1 is branched.  I'm not at
>> all fine with it going into 1.1 and getting released in 1.1: I don't
>> think we should release an api that has not been  proved to work well.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On May 22, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>> We have an initial swipe at some clustering to put into the sandbox, but
>>> will have a need for the session api ;-)
>>>
>>> Anyone have issue with putting the session API in 1.1 (the new trunk
>>> version that is)? (Need 3 +1s)
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>