geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick McGuire <rick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo 2.1.2 plans
Date Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:19:32 GMT
Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> Given that there were no objections to my offer to be release manager 
> for 2.1.2 - I'll go ahead and assume the role :-).
>
> There have been a number of JIRAs identified as required and others as 
> optional.  In addition to this there were already several already 
> tagged with a "fix version" of 2.1.2.  I added all of these latter 
> ones to the optional category.  At the moment I think things are 
> current in the wiki:
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-212-release-plan.html
>
> Several of the JIRAs that have been identified do not yet have an 
> owner.  We may need to discuss how critical these truly are for a 
> 2.1.2 release.
>
> In addition to the JIRAs there have been several other items mentioned 
> for 2.1.2:
> - Javamail?  Currently there is an optional item to release and 
> include a new version of javamail.  Given the recent fixes I think it 
> perhaps should be required.  Are you working on a release Rick and if 
> so, what is the ETA?  I can pitch in to get a release out if you don't 
> have the cycles.
I *should* be finished which changes to javamail for a while, so a new 
release can be cut for a vote at any time.  I was sort of holding off on 
cutting a new release until we reached the point it was necessary.  It 
sounds like we're at that point now, so I'll start the release process 
on it.

Rick

> - CDDL xsds? David mentioned the possibility of using the cddl xsds 
> rather than our xsds to generate xmlbeans classes. I'm not familiar 
> with how much work is necessary here or if it is feasible in the short 
> time-frame that we are considering for a 2.1.2 release.  Any more 
> feedback?
> - Accessibility? There has been some discussion and work on 
> accessibility improvements for the console.  At this point in time, I 
> think it makes sense to integrate some items before we lock things 
> down.  However, I don't think we should make this a requirement for 
> the release and we'll need to stop the updates early enough so that we 
> can validate there is no breakage before we create a release candidate 
> (see proposed dates below).  Comments?
>
> Is there anything else that we're missing?
>
> I'd like to get a release candidate available within a few weeks if 
> possible.  Perhaps 7/21 is a good target locking down the content 
> (code freeze).  If we release javamail we might need a little more 
> time than that.  Does that sound reasonable to all?  That would give 
> us a shot at getting a release candidate available by 7/24 or so and 
> if all goes perfectly a certified release and out the door by 7/31.
>
> Joe
>
>


Mime
View raw message