geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevan Miller" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] G 2.0.2 Release plan
Date Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:29:27 GMT
Moved from another mail thread...

On 9/17/07, 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.

The goal of 2.0.2 is to get fixes into user's hands. In general, I
agree with you. 2.0.x releases are bug-fix releases.

You're raising two questions: 1) what is a bug fix? and 2) how
dogmatic do we want to be in our bug-fix release management?

Regarding 1), I think we'd agree that there isn't necessarily an
objective measure for determining what is or isn't a bug fix. Re: 2),
we could be pretty conservative on our interpretation of "bug fix" or
we can be a bit more permissive on what we interpret as a "bug fix".
Personally, I probably fall into a more permissive side of that
decision (at least at this point in time of our 2.x lifetime -- I
expect I'll have a different answer when 2.4 rolls around...). In the
meantime, if users are encountering issues or experiencing pain
because of missing features (perhaps features that were overlooked),
then I'm not averse to alleviating this pain in a 2.0.x release. More
important metric, IMO, is are we helping our users?

I haven't looked closely at either of the issues that you highlight.
If you'd like me to, I'll evaluate and give my opinion with a release
manager hat on -- barring objections...)

> 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.

I haven't seen a discussion or proposal for a 2.1 release. So, it's
hard for me to evaluate if ApacheCon is a reasonable date for 2.1.

I don't think that a 2.1 schedule is, by itself, a reason to not do
work in 2.0.x -- especially at this point. When we have a target 2.1
release date and are getting closer to that date, then I'm sure I'd
feel differently...


View raw message