geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <>
Subject Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Date Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:06:17 GMT
On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <> wrote:
> Aaron,
> Since you asked.  First, Can you respond below if you will allow anyone that you have
sent a private
> e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other posts on this thread.
 I think
> that will help.


> Second, the which was injected into Geronimo is probably a good place
to start.
>   Here is a snip from whois of that domain.  I removed the address specific information.
> Registrant:
>     Address is provided *Removed*
>        Created on: 11-Apr-06
>        Expires on: 11-Apr-07
>        Last Updated on: 11-Apr-06
>     Administrative Contact:
>        Mulder, Erin
>     Technical Contact:
>        Mulder, Erin

Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs one,
and it can't be at Apache (due to the LGPL issue).  I've offered a
number of times to give people accounts to help manage the site, and
so far, no one's taken me up on it.  My goals are to provide a Maven
repository (=HTTP site) that can hold *all* plugins, ASF, LGPL, GPL,
proprietary.  Since I didn't see one out there, Erin was gracious
enoguh to provide one.  And now you're jumping on her for it?  That's

Also, recall that the file defining the available plugin repositories
is hosted by the ASF, so the ASF can change the list of available
sites away from at any time.

What is your counter-proposal?

> Next we can discuss the hijacking of JIRA for your own purposes.  I was working to release
1.1 and
> you moved over 80 other JIRAs into the release.  I  don't think that we agreed on how
to handle
> JIRAs but I think it was bad form to assume it was your prioritization mechanism since
you were not
> releasing 1.1.

Gosh, I didn't really think I was hijacking Jira.  I thought I was
using it for its intended purpose, which is to say, tracking the
issues with the project, what should be worked on, and who was willing
to work on what.  Including, of course, a todo list for myself.

I honestly had no idea that as release manager, you considered Jira to
be your domain, and didn't want people using without what -- your
approval?  By all means, if you object to something I do like that,
please say something!  "Aaron, I'm trying to use Jira to track the
tasks for 1.1, please don't put anything in there unless it's
*definitely* going to happen in the next 2 weeks" or whatever.  I
don't remember having those discussions until well after the fact.

> We also discussed how to use JIRA more effectively and you post was all about what YOU
wanted which
> may be unfair to post as you were presenting your opinion but the term I was introduced
> times.  I can find the post but I suspect its in most people's archives.

Yes of course.  I was explaining how I want to use an issue-tracking
system.  (Were your posts about how Jeff wants to use an issue
tracking system?)  I thought the point of the thread was for everyone
to say what they're looking for so we can then decide the best way to
do it as a group.

> Shall we begin to discuss the meeting at Java One that you proposed that specifically
> members of the community.  I'd be happy to bring that discussion to the list if you like.
> that IBM paid for the room that the discussion occurred in we are somewhat culpable but
given that
> you were the master mind behind the exclusionary wall I'm happy to have that discussion
in the open
> as well.

Well, actually, it was kind of a joint idea between myself and a few
other people who thought there were some things we ought to talk about
so long as we were all together.  I'm sorry that there's a perception
of an exclusionary wall.  It was on us to pay for the food, which at
hotel rates was $100 per person for the day, so naturally I wasn't
able to invite the entire Geronimo community.  I apologize to everyone
in the community who wasn't able to be at JavaOne or who wasn't
invited, but it seemed like an ideal scenario for many of us to get
together and discuss some of the current issues and then take the
discussion points to the mailing list.  If you objected, why am I
first hearing about it now?

And anyway, what is the perception of the "right" thing to do?  If
it's not economically feasible for every user, contributor, committer,
and PMC member to get together does that mean no meeting should
happen?  If so, will IBM immediately cease having any meetings or
phone calls discussing Geronimo issues?  Or are you going to provide
an international dial-in for every one, and hold them in the middle of
the night for the convenience of the Asian community?

I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it

> In the end all I need is a simple e-mail from you to this list allowing folks to paste
their private
> notes from you and we can have it all in the open which was your request.  I'm happy
to oblige.

???  I sense you have a major issue with some e-mail I've sent, though
in all honesty, I don't know what it is.  Did I say that IBM has a
secret plan to rule the world?  (Don't you? :)  In any case, be my


> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
> > on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
> > module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
> > etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
> > console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
> > not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
> > worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
> > caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
> > for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
> > think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
> > keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
> > move forward.
> >
> > As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
> > the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
> > was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
> > didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
> > (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
> > it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
> > preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
> > contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
> > well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
> > builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
> > appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
> > check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
> > and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
> > sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
> > strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
> > I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
> > how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
> > try something different for the release after.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    Aaron
> >
> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Bruce Snyder wrote:
> >> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
> >> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. 
> >> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
> >> >> working toward are.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a
> >> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on
> >> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
> >> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
> >> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer
> >> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
> >> > immensely.
> >>
> >> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
> >> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
> >> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made things
> >> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group
> >> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
> >> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
> >>
> >> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
> >> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea.
> >>
> >> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
> >> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully expect
> >> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
> >> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
> >> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
> >> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
> >> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> >
> >> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
> >> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
> >> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
> >> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
> >> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
> >> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
> >> >
> >> > Just my $0.02.
> >> >
> >> > Bruce
> >>
> >
> >
> >

View raw message