geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <drw_...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: 1.1 Release plan
Date Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:45:15 GMT
I agree that setting the Specs version to 1.2 for the Geronimo 1.1 
release would be more confusing than the current mix of 1.0/1.0.1/1.1.

It seems that we have 2 options:
Option #1 -
1) Create a specs/branches/1.1 from the current tags/1_1
2) Merge the updates from Trunk to add the LICENSE and NOTICES files in
3) Do not update any of the versions (keep the 1.0/1.0.1/1.1 mix)
4) Delete and recreate the 1.1 tag
5) Build and publish the Specs with their current versions to the repos

Option#2 -
Only #3 differs - Update ALL versions to 1.1

Given the past history of creating/deleting and recreating the 1.0 tag 
for Geronimo, why could we not do that again for the Specs?

Given the potential dependency version impacts to other projects (like 
OpenEJB, TranQL, Daytrader) that could delay the 1.1 release even 
longer, I would offer a non-binding vote for #1 and leave the whole 
"mixed versions or not" discussion up to a separate thread and vote.


-Donald


John Sisson wrote:
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> 
>> Final Items for 1.1
>>
>> I would like to release Geronimo 1.1 on June 12th.  Yes, that is three 
>> days away.  If we can't make that date then it will be 72 hours away 
>> from each candidate build.  Problem that are found need to be 
>> addressed if they are deemed critical.  Otherwise they will be tracked 
>> and solved in a follow on release.
> 
> Unfortunately I will be off-line for the next three days.  Not everybody 
> has every weekend free, so how about another 3 days so everyone has 
> plenty of notice and there will be less chance of  complaints.
> The only thing that I had outstanding was changes to the scripts 
> (GERONIMO-1638) as discussed at 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg22807.html . Have 
> made changes (not committed) but they need to be tested on windows, 
> cygwin and unix, so with my time constraints it looks like this is going 
> to be for 1.1.1 .
> 
> Probably need something in the release notes saying that use of the 
> GERONIMO_BASE environment variables probably won't work and the new
> 
> org.apache.geronimo.server.dir and org.apache.geronimo.server.name 
> system properties are subject to change as they are experimental.
> 
> 
> It would have been nice if I had a few more days to test and the 
> effectiveness of having a release candidate has already been proven.. 
> Maybe we should be giving the users a bit more time to test..
> 
>> That said.  I sent a note earlier today announcing the freeze to 
>> branches/1.1.  Changes to this branch should be limited to bug fixes 
>> only.  The little changes are the ones that generally burn you.  At 
>> 1400 ET the Inn is closed and I will spin up a release that will be 
>> our release candidate.
>>
>> The issues that have been raised from the previous build were 
>> Guillaume's observation of the problem when running  Geronimo under 
>> CygWin as well as the license and Notice issues.
>>
>> Since Geronimo is a multifaceted project there are several things that 
>> need to be voted on.  They are Geronimo itself, the specification jars 
>> and DayTrader.  Geronimo itself is the significant component that will 
>> carry the other items so I believe a vote for Geronimo in this context 
>> is a vote for all three items.
>>
>> *There is a concern about the specification jars*
>> David Jencks raised this issue in another note on the list.  The jars 
>> have not been released but they have had a tag cut and the resulting 
>> compilation has been placed on http://people.apache.org/repository.
>>
>> One of the issues I found with the spec is that there are different 
>> spec releases in the 1_1 tag.  I would prefer that all jars have the 
>> same version suffix.  Right now it includes 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.1 and 
>> others.  I think this is confusing.  We release Geronimo with all the 
>> same module versions even if nothing has changed.  I would like to 
>> move that we recut a 1_2 tag with all spec jars having a 1.2 suffix.
>>
> In theory the version suffix should match up with the JIRA records for 
> it, but it seems we don't have a separate JIRA project set up for specs, 
> but having a 1.2 suffix seems just as confusing to me since the specs 
> from a JIRA perspective are managed as part of Geronimo's JIRA and we 
> are releasing 1.1.
> 
>> *DayTrader*
>> Day Trader is currently a 1.1-SNAPSHOT as well.  We will release the 
>> DayTrader Ear (separate from Geronimo) as a 1.1 version as well.  This 
>> way the build will be in sync.
>>
>> *Issues*
>> 1. It was noted earlier today that there is a problem with Geronimo 
>> under CygWin.  Guillaume noted that an issue exists where a file is 
>> not renamed (config.xml).  Given that CygWin is a hybrid environment I 
>> think we should investigate this problem but not hold up the release.
> 
> I could reproduce the problem and fixed it.  See GERONIMO-2095.
> 
>>
>> 2. Guillaume also pointed out the lack of a License and Notices file.  
>> I will include the two files from the SVN geronimo/branches/1.1 in the 
>> build tomorrow.
>>
>> 3. Numerous bug fixes are being addressed.  Excellent.
>>
>> Apart from Spec issue above I think we have most everything 
>> addressed.  Does this list of outstanding items and release plan make 
>> sense?
>>
> Thanks Matt, I know you have been putting in some late nights getting 
> this on its way.
> 
>> Matt
>>
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message