geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: Release Early, Release Often
Date Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:08:31 GMT
Before we start thinking of a 1.2-alpha release we must decide what it 
is that we intend to include the final 1.2 release.  I don't think that 
we have done this yet (which is what I was getting at with my other post 
on this thread).

Once we have that content decided then we need to take a look at where 
we are at with regard to delivery of that content.   If we have the 
major functions nearly complete then we could consider cutting an alpha 
release while we continue to refine the capabilities and continue to 
deliver the more minor function of the release.  Anything short of that 
seems to me to be just exposing a nightly build.

Joe


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