geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Re: 1.1 Release plan
Date Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:57:45 GMT
I originally said I would release a new candidate after 1400 eastern time today.  Truth is
pretty wiped out and would like to cut a release tomorrow (Saturday).  We'll add some additional

time for JSisson as he is clearly doing something other than working :)

I propose that the next candidate is released on Sunday and allows 72 hours for feedback.
everyone ok with that ?

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> So as I understand this, the plan is:
> - new release candidate today, no more non-critical patches
> - begin voting for that release candidate today
> - if critical bugs are found within 72 hours, someone will -1 the
> vote, we will fix and cut a new release candidate, and start a new
> 72-hour vote
> I'm OK with that for this release (I don't think it's ideal, but I
> agree that it will be nice to get this release out the door, so I'm on
> board).  I hope someone will look at the weird web services error
> during deployment, because I don't know what to make of that (if it's
> reproduceable and how significant it is).
> If I'm right about the release plan, I think we should create a SVN
> home for 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT now so there's a place to put non-critical
> patches.  It will be annoying to put critical patches into 3 places,
> but we're hoping there aren't any of those.
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
> On 6/8/06, 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.
>> 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
>> 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.
>> *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.
>> 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?
>> Matt

View raw message