Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=dgvBxe2wzebfn5o+N/jkfrqI2IbLALDIhdlMD31oBpYi4v3TvGANTAkM3vj3RJtf;
  h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Message-ID: <48078DE7.7060608@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:50:31 -0400
From: Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Geronimo 2.1.1 RELEASE-NOTE & README questions.
References: <48065CDF.6000109@earthlink.net> <480669D0.8010808@gmail.com>
 <8238363F-EDD8-4650-B17D-9D816F6A8169@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8238363F-EDD8-4650-B17D-9D816F6A8169@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kevan Miller wrote:
> Sorry, started typing this yesterday and got distracted...
> 
> On Apr 16, 2008, at 5:04 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> 
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> RELEASE_NOTES:
>>> 1) I've noticed that we actually have 2 RELEASE_NOTES-2.1.txt files 
>>> in our source.  They are both identical.   One is in our root ... 
>>> branches/2.1.1/RELEASE-NOTES-2.1.txt.  The other is 
>>> branches/2.1.1/assemblies/geronimo-boilerplate-minimal/src/main/underlay/RELEASE_NOTES-2.1.txt.  
>>> Are both of these necessary?  If not, which one is really required?
> 
> The one in branches/2.1.1/ is for source distributions. The copy in 
> underlay/ is for binary distributions. If you can figure out how to 
> include the branches/2.1.1/ copy into our binary distributions, then 
> just that one is sufficient. Otherwise, we should have both...
> 
>>>
>>> 2) How elaborate do the release notes need to be for a maintenance 
>>> release like 2.1.1?  For example, our 2.1 release notes included a 
>>> list of enhancements explaining each.  I was just planning to list 
>>> the JIRAs that were included in the release since most items are bug 
>>> fixes and remove the 2.1 enhancement content.  Is that sufficient and 
>>> what we have done in the past?
>>
>> If it is only bug fixes then that should be the focus, no need to 
>> include the "Geronimo 2.1 Enhancements" again I guess.
>> We need to make sure we clearly mention this is a maintenance release 
>> and that no new functionality has been introduced
> 
> Personally, I'd make the bug fixes cumulative -- 2.1 enhancements + 
> 2.1.1 bug fixes. Next service release we add 2.1.2 bug fixes.

I was originally thinking the same thing ... then I checked back at 
2.0.2 and 2.0 to discover that the original enhancements were not 
included in subsequent release notes.  However, since we were both 
thinking the same thing I'll go with my original intent and update the 
release notes the wiki to include both.

> 
>>
>>
>>> 3) Why is the version number in the name?  I assume that I need to 
>>> rename the current one to reflect that this is 2.1.1 ... but it might 
>>> be better to just remove the version number completely when I rename it.
>>
>> For one, it help us develop/maintain the release notes in the wiki 
>> (can't have 2 files with the same name). Second, I guess it's the 
>> fastest way to know the installed version. Specially when you have 
>> multiple installs and have been chopping the <geronimo_home> directory 
>> to single characters to run "worry free" on certain platform ;-)
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>>
>>> README.txt:
>>> 4) As with the RELEASE_NOTES we also have 2 instances of the 
>>> README.txt file in our source.  One is in our root  ... 
>>> branches/2.1.1/README.txt.  The other is 
>>> branches/2.1.1/assemblies/geronimo-boilerplate-minimal/src/main/underlay/README.txt.  
>>> There is one minor difference between the 2 files.  Are both of these 
>>> necessary and if not, which one is required?
> 
> Same reason as above...
> 
> --kevan
>