geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <>
Subject Re: Geronimo 2.1.2 plans
Date Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:16:51 GMT

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?


> 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'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.

View raw message