geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: 1.1 Release plan
Date Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:51:45 GMT
I think this is a good plan.

Kevan and I have been working on what we eventually registered as  
GERONIMO-2100.  This has been causing intermittent tck failures and  
as it is a security problem and the fix is pretty straightforward I  
think it's worth including in 1.1: thus I committed it.

The other issue I think might be worth considering for 1.1 depending  
on whether it is actually fixed is GERONIMO-2079, a race condition on  
ejb startup.  I've been studying dain's proposal and can't decide if  
it relies on double-checked locking.  I'm going to try to run it  
under load and propose that if it works there we commit it.

Who is tagging and releasing openejb?

david jencks

On Jun 8, 2006, at 8:23 PM, 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 
> 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.
> *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