geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jarek Gawor" <jga...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Date Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:52:57 GMT
Maybe I misunderstood your initial message but I thought you wanted to
create 'branches/2.0' branch and not 'branches/2.0-M6' branch.
Branching for M6 as usual sounds fine to me.

Jarek

On 6/2/07, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> Branching for a 2.0-M6 is  a short lived process and basically what
> we've done over the past few months.  I'll branch, fix up / clean up
> and andy patches there will be small and easily managed in two
> branches.  This isn't intended to be a long lived maintenance
> problem.  We've been there and done that and don't plan on returning.
>
> On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:29 PM, 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