geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <>
Subject Re: 1.1.1 - Ready or not ? Soliciting input
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:49:45 GMT
On 8/8/06, Matt Hogstrom <> wrote:
> I don't agree with  the above statement.  Was that posted somewhere ?  We've talked about
> things around faster but I don't think that infers poor quality releases.
> I was going to spin up an rc1 this afternoon and look for feedback.  The whole goal of
this process
> is to shake out issues.  If there is an issue that we need to address (the server doesn't
> correctly) then we'll fix it.  I think what your referring to is assessing what are the
issues that
> stop a release and we probably have different perspectives on where that line is drawn.

Different perspectives -- check.  Otherwise, no need for a discussion.  :)

> I think the process is the same for 2-digit releases as well as dot releases.  We work
together to
> define the content, spin out a release, certify it, create an rc, gather community feedback
and vote
> to release it.

Well, I had proposed I think a couple distinct RC release with like 2
weeks of evaluation of each back when we were talking about a schedule
for 1.2.  And I don't know that we need to go that far for a 1.1.x
release.  So there ought to be *some* difference.  In any case, I
think the fundamental question is what tolerance we have for fixing
issues identified in the RC, and what we mean by "doesn't function
correctly".  It's OK with me to vote in order to establish the
community's opinion on that, but clearer guidelines would probably

> The binding vote is probably another discussion :)  Its clear your concerned about the
quality of
> the release and the code we make available to users.  It would be nice to have you with
a binding vote.

Well, I don't think any one person's vote will matter.  At least, I
hope that one way or another a release wouldn't be contentious enough
that there wasn't a clear concensus.

> Its not me and Kevan.  We've been nuturing the release along and lots have people have
helped get
> the 45 + JIRAs in there.  The community will make the decision and not two people.  I
apologize if
> I've put anything in e-mail or other form that would lead you to believe differently.

Sorry, you've misunderstood me.  I was replying to Joe.  At the time I
replied, you had started the thread without (it seemed to me)
expressing a clear opinion, my opinion was that we shouldn't ship with
the listed issues, and Kevan and Joe had piped in to say that they
thought most or all of the issues should not stop the release.  So
when I said "you and Kevan" I was trying to summarize the positions of
Joe and Kevan, as the other people who had replied at that time.

I totally agree that the work has been a community effort and the
decision will be a community effort.  We've also had more responses to
the thread now, though I hope there will still be more to come.


> >> Kevan Miller wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Aug 8, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 1.1.1 is in a form that we can get ready to release it.  I was
> >> >> talking with Aaron and he mentioned that there were some security
> >> >> issues he was concerned about.  I would like to use this thread to
> >> >> identify any issues that should be considered show stoppers and  make
> >> >> the decision on how to move forward.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please use this thread to provide that information.  What I think
> >> >> we'll need to make an appropriate assessement is:
> >> >>
> >> >> Issue Description
> >> >> How long have we had it?  (has it existed in earlier releases and 
> >> >> knew it)
> >> >> Exposure
> >> >> JIRA issue number tracking the issue.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please provide your input as quickly as possible so we can assess 
> >> >> to proceed with 1.1.1.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I don't have any background information -- other than what's in the
> >> > jira database for 1.1.1. I see GERONIMO-2295 -- http://
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I haven't verified the problem. However, given the description, I'd
> >> say
> >> > it's definitely something that needs to be fixed.
> >> >
> >> > It's currently assigned to Alan. Alan, are you working on this?
> >> >
> >> > --kevan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >

View raw message