geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Colasurdo <>
Subject Re: Release Early, Release Often
Date Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:22:34 GMT
Here is the wikipedia definition for Pre-Alpha, Alpha, Beta, etc..

The definitions pretty much agree with my preconception of what an Alpha 
  would contain.

IMHO, trunk is not currently in an Alpha state and doesn't accurately 
reflect the "majority of the software requirements" that will be 
addressed in G1.2.

It seems that trunk is currently in a pre-alpha state and I believe 
making an occasional unstable/nightly build available would allow 
users/developers to get familiar with the latest and greatest functions 
in trunk without giving the false impression that G1.2 is currently in 
Alpha state.

Just my .02


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

View raw message