Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of ammulder@gmail.com designates
 64.233.184.237 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=dWlucVPBxflnJW8XwQa53CKTu4/v9Nph/aKJYMF3EH44tlG+8TL6afVZZru2e8Z9yE/3bkdN3RHJrHZxdPibCNvCyY46jBbgI8BBmxWlYkk9omt5Hd8fDOz3+OM45NCzUlmeim1fnuE9qMnsL9wFPG/tiKJRw0so9hNSgltFcxU=
Message-ID: <74e15baa0606091240o1ebe5080xbfac942629fd4e43@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:40:16 -0400
From: "Aaron Mulder" <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
Sender: ammulder@gmail.com
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: 1.1 Release plan
In-Reply-To: <4488E995.6090502@hogstrom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4488E995.6090502@hogstrom.org>

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 <matt@hogstrom.org> 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
> http://people.apache.org/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
>