geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M5 (rc1) binaries available
Date Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:10:15 GMT
I think doing a monthly or simi-monthy unstable would be excellent,  
and would save a lot of work.  As for naming, I don't really care.   
We are releasing milestones right now, and they don't really  
represent "defined" goals anyway.

-dain


On Apr 26, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Donald Woods wrote:

> I like the idea of publishing monthly builds, but calling them a  
> Milestone when there was no defined and met milestone doesn't quite  
> make sense...
>
> Why not just ask Prasad (or Jason w/ GBuild) to include the  
> testsuite in the daily run that includes the unit tests -
>
>    Subject: [BUILD] TRUNK: Successful for Revision: 532672
>    Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:37:43 -0000
>    From: prasad@apache.org
>    Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
>    To: scm@geronimo.apache.org
>
>    OpenEJB trunk at 532669
>    Geronimo Revision: 532672 built with tests included
>    . . .
>
> and then just pick one of those that passes every week to publish  
> to the snapshot repo and to publish for users to download?  That  
> way, as the testsuite gains more component coverage, we'll  
> naturally move towards a more formal test process before releases  
> are selected to vote on.
>
>
> -Donald
>
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> Here is a question to ponder.  Would anyone object if I simply  
>> made these binaries available from people as a monthly unstable  
>> release?  Given the amount of time it takes to spin this up and  
>> vote I'd rather just pick an svn version and make it available.  I  
>> think it burns up a lot of people's time to follow the release  
>> process.  Simply pop out the binary, let people play with it and  
>> if things are broken there is always trunk.  Perhaps we could move  
>> to a weekly unstable.
>> Anyway, I'd like some thoughts on this.
>> On Apr 26, 2007, at 2:39 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>> Starting DISCUSS thread if necessary for this release.
>>>


Mime
View raw message