geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: Release Early, Release Often
Date Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:23:12 GMT
 From an ASF perspective is there a difference between releasing an Alpha versus a full release
?

Avoiding TCK will help significantly.

Jason Dillon wrote:
> We will get to that soon enough, though I don't believe that would be a 
> replacement for alpha/beta releases.
> 
> --jason
> 
> 
> On Sep 6, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> 
>> We kind of discussed this before...
>>
>> But why not have the automated nightly build from trunk?
>>
>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> I am thinking about an 1.2-alpha release, which does not need to pass
>>> any tck, but can still be downloaded by folks that want to test their
>>> apps on the bleeding edge (with out having to build).  While there is
>>> nothing major from a J2EE perspective in the alpha, a lot has changed,
>>> or will change very shortly.  Here is a list with comments of new and
>>> upcoming stuff:
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ 4.1, is about to get committed.
>>>
>>> Derby is about to get upgraded.
>>>
>>> Log4j is about to get upgraded.
>>>
>>> Use of concurrent util is about to get changed to 
>>> backport-concurrent-util.
>>>
>>> Lets not forget that we changed the build system, which mostly impacts
>>> development, but also has an impact on the configuration files, and
>>> plugins... new CAR m2 plugin.  I think it would be really good to get an
>>> alpha out so that people can easily test and provide feedback.
>>>
>>> New m2 plugin to start/stop Geronimo, soon to have new deploy goals.
>>>
>>> A bunch of bug fixes.
>>>
>>>  * * *
>>>
>>> I think that by releasing a 1.2-alpha, that we also start down the path
>>> of changing the perception of how quickly we release.  The alpha can
>>> also serve to help us get some experience using the m2 release plugin so
>>> that when it comes time for a non-alpha/beta release that we have
>>> confidence in the procedure... and this will give us time to make sure
>>> that we have the right configurations and setup to make a release with
>>> relative ease.
>>>
>>> Also, more of a side effect, by making a new release, it helps control
>>> the JIRA roadmap, right now 1.2 is filled with a bunch of build system
>>> related fluff and other bits...
>>>
>>> I think that we have enough changes (or soon to change in the next days
>>> or so) to warrant an alpha.  I don't see any reason why not to... we
>>> don't need to spend days/weeks to ensure the TCK passes, because we
>>> don't need to run it.  It should be sufficient to vote on an alpha and
>>> then cut the release, which should be easy with the maven release
>>> plugin, and even easier with my gpg-sign'ing mojo to sign and upload all
>>> artifacts.
>>>
>>> I believe that having this alpha out will benefit our community, showing
>>> that we are going to start releasing more often, give people a chance to
>>> provide feedback more often an earlier.
>>>
>>> I certainly do not expect any production customers to use this, but I do
>>> expect that app developers will, so they can ready their apps for
>>> deployment on the platform.  We will clearly label this as an alpha
>>> release, and clear state that it has not been TCK certified.
>>>
>>> I don't see any downside to cutting a release off of trunk soonish, in
>>> the next week or so.
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2006, at 9:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 5, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> According to our STATUS file, our last feature release (1.1) was on
>>>>> 2006-06-26 which is about 2.5 months ago.  I'm not sure exactly what
>>>>> we have in trunk right now, but I'd guess we most likely have enough
>>>>> to do a release right now.   I'm going to spend a few hours today
>>>>> browsing the JIRAs and SVN logs and compile a list of the features we
>>>>> have in trunk right now. Anyways, I'll let you know what I find and
>>>>> we can figure out what we want to do.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be interested to hear more concretely what's in Geronimo trunk,
>>>> OpenEJB 2.2, etc that's not in 1.1.1...
>>>>
>>>> --kevan
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message