geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Date Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:53:23 GMT
I think we need to release the reorganized/repom'd specs... that was  
the general plan after cleaning them up was to make a release so we  
have a set of consistent non-SNAPSHOT specs to work off of.

After this re-release, we can debate one version, or whatever.  I'd  
still like to see one version win out, but I have yet to come up with  
the smoking gun argument to convince everyone that I'm not on crack.

BUT... for now, we gotta move forward with something.  Its easy  
enough to change later if we want.


On Nov 7, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

> On Nov 7, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> Are you kidding me?  You want to open this up for discussion again  
>> just as we were going to finally make some progress and hopefully  
>> put this to bed.  The reorganization we just did was to have one  
>> version number per spec.
> Well, as you have probably guessed, I'm not. You aren't putting  
> this to "bed". You're ignoring it. I'd like to put it to bed.
> We agreed to reorg specs. We did not decide whether or not to  
> release specs in independent or interlocked version numbers. Isn't  
> that what we discussed on dev@?
>> As you can see, I am totally against changing what we have right  
>> now, one version per spec.
> Fine. And I'm against releasing a bunch of specs, for which we've  
> gotten the version numbers wrong for twice in this discussion  
> thread. If we can't keep them straight, now, seems like we're  
> destined for confusion in the future.
> So, you and I cancel each other out. Why don't we let the community  
> decide and move on? I'm happy to abide by our decision...
> P.S. I'd assumed that we'd be passing TCK before releasing the  
> specs (at least that's how we've operated in the past). There's  
> some risk (probably pretty small) that we'll uncover a problem with  
> specs with our testing. Are you planning on releasing prior to tck  
> passing or afterward?
> --kevan

View raw message