geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <>
Subject Re: Geronimo 2.1.2 plans
Date Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:26:04 GMT
Kevan Miller wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 4:18 PM, 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:
>> 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.
> 4175 seems like the only absolute *must-fix* in the list. Well, guess 
> I'd want to better understand 4124 and 4099...
> Would be good to see the others fixed, but not a hard requirement, IMO.
>> 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 agree.
>> - 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?
> Personally, I'd target this for 2.2. I definitely would like to see 
> this, I'd just target it for our next full release.
>> - 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?
> Agreed.
>> Is there anything else that we're missing?
> Samples --  I'm tempted to say that I need to see a released/deployable 
> samples for a 2.1.2 release.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do with Samples regarding 2.1.2. 
We definitely need to get samples released.  I also think it's still 
important to get versions of samples available that can be deployed on 
Geronimo 2.1 and 2.1.1.  If we release samples for either or both of 
these releases then we can also release a compatibility plugin so that 
they can run in 2.1.2.  We might want to even consider including the 
appropriate artifact-alias entries in the 2.1.2 server images directly 
with the 2.1.2 release (instead of a plugin) so that not only samples 
but other plugins created for 2.1 or 2.1.1 could run on 2.1.2 (such as 

>> 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.
> Sounds ok to me. 
> --kevan

View raw message