geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Date Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:48:26 GMT
My bad, I was asking two questions but was not clear.  One was  
branching (which was really a discuss on when do we do that) and the  
other was release naming.  After re-reading the thread I see the  
error of my ways and repent in dust and ashes.

On Jun 2, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:

> 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