geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: [Results] Priorities for 1.2
Date Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:13:18 GMT

On Oct 10, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> Just as a point of reference on process.  I'm just about done with  
> the CMP improvements.  These changes are really to tranQL and  
> OpenEJB.  I've had users asking for them and based on the note  
> below I'm not sure what your expectations are.  I plan on getting  
> them tested and integrated this week.  There are no changes to  
> Geronimo framework but they are new features for the Assembly we  
> call J2EE certified.

Outstanding.

> I think the prioritization on the items below is great feedback but  
> if someone is working on an area that is not in the mainstream of  
> community priority but the code is being delivered what then?
>
> Not trying to be argumentative but I'm not understanding the  
> tangible results of the discussion below apart from getting a  
> community pulse on development.  In the past people worked on what  
> they were interested in.
>
> I thought the point of the exercise was to identify what the  
> community wanted in the release before we cut it and to provide a  
> roadmap for interested parties but not to exclude development in  
> other areas.  This is different than what we've done in the past.

You bring up some great points.  Your question indicates that we need  
to add some "color" to Dain's post.

Hernan's roadmap has been out there for quite a while.  As I've  
mentioned a couple of times with my discussion with Hernan, this is a  
great place to get the bigger picture and for people to see what  
features are in the pipeline and who's working on them.

What Dain has posted is a tactical set of priorities for the v1.2  
release.  If someone wants to work on something for v1.2 that isn't  
on this list they are more than welcome to commit to adding it to  
that release.  I hope that that list was inclusive of all the  
features that people have committed to completing for v1.2.  If not,  
then we need to get them on this list.

I think that the idea was to feature items that allow us to  
concretely plan.  We cannot plan about features that have no  
resources assigned to them.


Regards,
Alan


Mime
View raw message