Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.234 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer;
        b=b2dh4gZlCKoT9iPZCxKhG+mK1JMOG2y/1IwBQ+AyaF3rqtBbCn8JCurxXK+nOvEzPJOdZF3mCZZzRSvB/atsSVEoB1xrB2NyB5KtvsLGwFfLfQ6gu2o7+1WiQAtWUh6UnPjRCHzUWE4wfmREN769vX3+Puqf44Pi/CP2zcAtLkw=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <C6CD5819-3121-4C45-A49B-0194D19A9205@hogstrom.org>
References: <C6CD5819-3121-4C45-A49B-0194D19A9205@hogstrom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <2BEEC939-D3F2-43B7-A408-808E62785858@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0 Release Criteria
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:03:26 -0400
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org


On Jun 21, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> We've gone through the CTS grind and came out victorious http:// 
> java.sun.com/javaee/overview/compatibility.jsp
>
> OpenEJB has moved to TopLevel and CXF has certified and Axis 2 is  
> working that way too.
>
> All in all its been an excellent six months.
>
> So, what are we going to do for 2.0 and getting it out the door?
>
> Here are my thoughts and we can use this thread to gather everyone  
> else's and come to a consensus.
>
> 2.0 Ship Criteria
> Date:  mid to end of July (a target only...depends on content)
>
> Certified Assemblies
> Tomcat, Axis 2 and OpenJPA
> Jetty, CXF and OpenJPA

Seems reasonable. I think it's a good idea to run tests of alternate  
combinations of web container and web services implementations. We  
don't need to to commit to certifying the 2 additional  
configurations. However, I think we'll benefit by keeping ourselves  
honest...

>
> Other assemblies would be the minimal assemblies but cert doesn't  
> apply to them.
>
> Work on fit and finish stuff (cleaning up error messages, improving  
> diagnostics, reducing footprint).

One mandatory fit-and-finish item is a thorough review (and update)  
of our license/notice files. Jacek already noted that our disclaimers  
were out-of-date.

>
> Personally, I'd like to see the full G have a footprint of about  
> 40MB (that's a little over 5MB larger than 1.1.1) and Minimal be  
> around 20MB.  Need to do some research on this (volunteers?)

My unpacked geronimo 1.1.1 jetty server is 41 megs. 2.0-SNAPSHOT  
unpacked is 73 megs. Would like to see the 2.0 size reduced. No way  
that it'll be brought down to a 5 meg delta. Let's get an analysis of  
where our growth is coming from. Then see what we think a reasonable  
target is...

--kevan