geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Thoughts about what a release is
Date Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:09:23 GMT
I think one of the significant frustrations I've had with getting Geronimo released is a lack
common understanding about several items.

I am listing the ones off the top of my head (in no particular order).

*What constitutes a release?*
Speaking from my IBM WebSphere days (just as a point of reference for discussion and not 
specifically a recommendation) we generally differentiated products based on Versions and
  Versions were significant new content and function which might be defined as a new J2EE

specification implementation, significant new function (clustering improvements might fall
in this 
category), etc.

Releases were less dramatic and more incremental in nature.  They could include performance

improvements, new features that were not disruptive to previous releases (such as improved
persistence options, etc.) or perhaps even a JDK Version upgrade from 1.4 to 1.5 for instance.

Releases could also include what we referred to as tech previews.  These were items that we
people to have a chance to start using but it wasn't fully baked yet.  However, we did not
want to 
wait a whole version release to put it in the hands of the users.

So for notational usefulness.  We saw a version number break down like v.r.m where V is the
version number, R was the release number and M was a modification level.

Modification levels could include new features of a limited nature as described above.  One
simply aware of how it would impact the users in terms of determining appropriateness.

So, our 1.1 that we are currently release doesn't fit the above model as very little new content
added.  The Plugins is probably the most significant feature but based on where it is at today
say its more of a tech preview in terms of readiness and number of plugins available for 
consumption.  It really should have been 1.0.1.  IIRC the reason we made it 1.1 is that so
much of 
the internal plumbing changed (I guess as well as the schema design) that it didn't make sense
as a 

With that said, for 1.1.1 I am interested in fixing things like error messages that are not
helpful, applying outstanding patches that address usability improvements (like asking are
yu sure 
you want to delete that) as well as improve our performance in the CMP realm where we are
behind.  The performance improvements are not destructive and are (architecturally) fairly
simple to 
enable.  However, based on Alan's comments in another e-mail perhaps not appropriate.

With that I think we need to decide if the next turn of the crank for Geronimo is really 1.2

(incremental improvement) or 2.0 significant change, new significant features, etc.


View raw message