geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Date Sat, 02 Jun 2007 08:41:13 GMT
+1

-Donald

Jarek Gawor wrote:
> One thing I would be in favor of is branching only when we are
> actually ready for 2.0 final. Otherwise, we will have two trees to
> commit our patches to and keep in synch. And that is always
> problematic.
> 
> Jarek
> 
> On 6/1/07, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> I like Kevan's suggestion.  We ship the assemblies we normally build.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
>>
>> > On 01/06/2007, at 3:56 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0
>> >>> certified and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is
>> >>> not an oncoming train but the other side :)  With that we're also
>> >>> at the point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of
>> >>> May.  Given that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested
>> >>> what do folks think about the name of the release and what will
>> >>> it contain?  Also, when is a branch appropriate?
>> >>>
>> >>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6.  This would include
>> >>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components.  The M6 indicates a
>> >>> work in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as
>> >>> certified and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for
>> >>> performance, footprint, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Why not also a jetty assembly?  Unless there are really
>> >> significant problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple days and
>> >> getting both platforms out at the same time.
>> >
>> > I am also in favor of a simultaneous release of Jetty and Tomcat
>> > assemblies.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Gianny
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at
>> >>> this time as we finish the other work.
>> >>>
>> >>> What do others think?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on
>> >> that I would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever
>> >> (milestone, snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards
>> >> compatible.  It affects how default subjects and run-as subjects
>> >> are constructed and will finish the JACC plugability work.  I'll
>> >> try to get something out today describing how it works in more
>> >> detail.
>> >>
>> >> thanks
>> >> david jencks
>> >>
>> >>> Matt
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message