Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <1A2BE307-94CA-41FF-A995-062BD66AADCA@iq80.com>
References: <0E808764-B468-408C-8E81-8E55449C3EE4@hogstrom.org>
 <A2FF9A94-B592-4E9D-8A7C-EBBF27A40B9A@hogstrom.org>
 <4630E7C4.9050200@apache.org> <1A2BE307-94CA-41FF-A995-062BD66AADCA@iq80.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <56F1E832-EFBF-4CDF-889A-A7512FC43233@hogstrom.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M5 (rc1) binaries available
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:01:49 -0400
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

In the beginning I think we were tracking more of a clearly defined  
content but as we get toward the end of 2.0 from a function complete  
perspective the line does tend to blur.  The goals from my  
perspective were really twofold.  One was to put a regular drop of  
code to our users.  The second was to help refine our process as  
every release we ran into new issues that led to delays in getting a  
release out.

User's clearly want to have builds they can get ahold of and test  
with.  Looking at the User mailing list I see several references to  
M3, or where is M4 so its clear that users find them valuable.   
Toward that end a continuous stream of builds is good.

I think we've also helped to refine our process.  At this point  
cranking out a release is significantly better and many of the legal  
and packaging issues that has plagued us have been resolved.  I'm not  
sure we need to continue releasing on a monthly basis.  That said, we  
still need to keep up on the process so it doesn't fall apart over  
time.  Also, one added benefit to doing the drill is people take a  
slightly more critical look at the content of the build.  Overall,  
there is benefit to doing it but it is expensive.  Just like Jason  
has observed on several occasions that if we don't keep an eye on  
things they fall into disrepair (like the build).  Anyway, probably  
more of a balancing act; we're better off than we were and we're just  
finding the right balance.

Thoughts?


On Apr 27, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> 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.
>>>>
>
>