geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <>
Subject Re: 1.1 Release plan
Date Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:40:16 GMT
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.


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
> you.  At 1400 ET the Inn is closed and I will spin up a release that will be our release
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> outstanding items and release plan make sense?
> Matt

View raw message