geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim McConnell <>
Subject Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:35:44 GMT
Hi Joe, the fix has been applied to branches\2.1 and the build works with it. 
How a TCK run is scheduled/invoked is unclear to me though. Please advise if 
there is something I need to do for that to occur. Thanks much.

Joe Bohn wrote:
> So here is what I understand:
> - This is exclusively a G server problem and will not impact the GEP 2.1 
> release.  However, GEP 2.1 could reference Geronimo 2.1.1 if it is 
> released in time and hence could potentially benefit from this fix if 
> included in Geronimo 2.1.1
> - This is a long time problem that was never identified as a show 
> stopper for Geronimo (2.1.1 or otherwise).  Of course, having a fix 
> certainly changes the urgency to get it in :-)
> - This change is currently integrated into trunk and not branches/2.1 or 
> branches/2.1.1
> - The fix is in a kernel module and as such could potentially affect 
> various areas in Geronimo (hence the caution of validation via full TCK 
> runs).
> Is this worth further delaying the 2.1.1 release to include this fix?  I 
> was ready to create the release candidate now but this would delay us 
> several more days before we could even get anything out for a vote. 
> (BTW, I have already updated the version numbers in branches/2.1.1 to 
> remove SNAPSHOT in prep for the release).
> If we were to pursue this fix we should do the following:
> 1) Put the change in branches/2.1 first. (it really needs to go there 
> anyway and it makes much more sense to merge from branches/2.1 to 
> branches/2.1.1 than from trunk to branches/2.1.1) - We should do this 
> now regardless of the plans for 2.1.1
> 2) Validate TCK on branches/2.1 (2.1.2-SNAPSHOT)
> 3) IIF things look good in 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT we would move the fix to 2.1.1
> Joe
> Tim McConnell wrote:
>> Hi Kevan/Joe, yes GERONIMO-3966 has been classified as a show-stopper 
>> for GEP 2.1, but I "think" we were assuming the problem was in the GEP 
>> and not the server itself. However, it's apparently been a long-term 
>> problem in the server, and is not a windows-only problem, so I'm not 
>> certain that it should be considered a show-stopper for the GEP. 
>> Finally, I really wouldn't feel comfortable propagating it elsewhere 
>> until we have clean TCK run against it since it involves a change in 
>> the geronimo-kernel module. Thanks.
>> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>> On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>> Shiva,
>>>> The same answer applies here that I just sent to Gianny.  I've 
>>>> included it here as well just so that you don't have to go hunting....
>>>> branches/2.1.1 is closed to new changes beyond those which would 
>>>> prevent us from shipping.  I had intended to have images up for vote 
>>>> a few days ago, but I'm having some difficulty creating those 
>>>> images.  They will hopefully be out for a vote later today.
>>>> You should include these changes in branches/2.1 (which has been 
>>>> updated for 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT).
>>>> Sorry to be hard nosed about cutting the release ... but we have to 
>>>> cut sometime and are always more more items coming in to include.  
>>>> Hopefully we can get better at releasing smaller releases with more 
>>>> frequency and 2.1.2 won't be long off.
>>> Joe,
>>> I totally understand the sentiment. However, I believe that 
>>> GERONIMO-3966 has been classified as a must fix problem for the 
>>> pending release of GEP 2.1. I'd like to hear from Tim/Shiva/etc 
>>> whether or not that's true... If true, I think we need to consider 
>>> including... If we do pick it up, we should probably grab Gianny's 
>>> change...
>>> --kevan

Tim McConnell

View raw message