geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
Date Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:33:43 GMT
Speaking of versions I think we should go to openjpa 1.0.0.... the  
trunk build has been broken for a bit since the -r* snapshot openejb  
was using seems to have disappeared.

I'm working on this...
david jencks

On Sep 17, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:

> I agree that 2.0.2 should be limited to bug fixes but I think new  
> features are OK as long as they are very low risk and don't cause  
> any backwards compatibility problems.  I think when users pick up a  
> x.y.z+1 release they want and expect minimal risk and disruption.   
> Right now GERONIMO-2925 is classified in JIRA as Type: Bug,  
> Priority: Critical.   So if we're OK with that classification then  
> sound like it's a good candidate for 2.0.2.   Otherwise let's  
> update the JIRA.
> As for the directory per web-app feature, the JIRA (GERONIMO-2964)  
> contains a lot of discussion about schema changes and version  
> compatibility, which tends to raise an eyebrow about its inclusion  
> in 2.0.2.   But the schema changes may be minor and backwards  
> compatible(?), and the reported problems with plugin compatibility  
> might be a false alarm because the plugins in 2.0.1 may not have  
> been working correctly in the first place?  I am still a little  
> confused about that.   Once the final solution for that item has  
> been committed to trunk I think it would be a good idea to  
> summarize how it might affect 2.0.1 users (especially w.r.t.  
> backwards compatibility) so that the community and release manager  
> can help weigh in on whether or not it should be merged to the 2.0  
> branch.
> Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 available by  
> 9/21.  I have a question for the team about that.   I would like to  
> bump Geronimo's version of MyFaces from 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 since that  
> new release contains several bug fixes, some of them actually found  
> and reported by Geronimo users.  But doing that could affect  
> Geronimo's TCK results and affect the 9/21 delivery date.   I would  
> imagine that the same is true for other dependencies.    Are we OK  
> with picking up maintenance releases of Geronimo dependencies in  
> 2.0.2 even if we think TCK issues could slow us down?   Or should  
> we keep 2.0.2 focused on "localized" changes and only bump the  
> dependency versions in Geronimo 2.1 so we have more time to deal  
> any resulting TCK issues?
> Best wishes,
> Paul
> On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>> I agree 2.0.2 should be primarily bug fixes but I don't think it  
>> must be limited to only bug fixes.  If there are small changes  
>> that address customer concerns on security (such as GERONIMO-2925)  
>> or usability then I think those can be considered for inclusion.   
>> Key is to keep the date Kevan proposed (Friday, 9/21) and resolve  
>> any TCK issues.
>> Joe
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>> I'm starting to wonder what the goal for 2.0.2 is.  I kinda  
>>> thought that a x.y.z where z > 0 was a bugfix-only release of  
>>> x.y.z-1 but I think some new features are going into 2.0.2...   
>>> IIUC Vamsi is applying an enhancement to allow specifying work  
>>> directory per-web-app and donald is encouraging me to apply my  
>>> proposal to GERONIMO-2925 to the branch.  Though small these are  
>>> definitely new features.
>>> Personally I would prefer to minimize such feature creep and have  
>>> more focus on getting 2.1 out in a less than geological time  
>>> frame, in particular before apachecon atlanta.
>>> What do others think?
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks

View raw message