geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jay D. McHugh" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.0.3 release
Date Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:50:49 GMT
Hello all,

I did some work on trying to get a 2.0.3 release that would:
a) build - sucess!
b) pass the TCK - Massive failure (over 5000 tests)

So, considering that we have a 2.1.x and 2.2.x codestream in progress
with JEE6 breathing down our necks - I have been officially pushed into
the 'we should probably just document what it takes to upgrade' group.

Are there any folks who truly need to stay on 2.0?

Or would it be reasonable to make a pronouncement that the 2.0.x
codestream is no longer going to be maintained - even for bug fixes and
security issues?


(I'll start documenting the libraries/jars that have changed or been
removed - we will need that regardless)


Joe Bohn wrote:
> I guess I should resolve this discussion on "if" we should release 2.0.3
> that I started.
> Thank you both Jay and Donald for your responses. I'm not completely
> opposed to a 2.0.3 release.  I was just wondering aloud if it was the
> best use of our resources and if it conveyed the right message to our
> users.  I was also wondering a little if it might create more problems
> for our users than it solves.  You know the drill ... upgrade from one
> maintenance release to another only to discover yet another issue that
> then forces you to a new version like 2.1.* because it isn't resolved in
> the current maintenance stream.  If it weren't for the security issues I
> would see no value in a 2.0.3 release.  Anyway, I am certainly not
> planning to stand in the way of a 2.0.3 release.  I'll even do my part
> to validate the images and help where I can.  However, my gut still
> tells me that we might creating more problems than we are solving. But
> since I'm the only one that feels that way I'm not too worried (I've
> been wrong plenty of times before ;-) ).
> It sounds like we still need to document what is necessary to move from
> 2.0.* to 2.1.* in any case.  I guess the first step might be adding the
> libraries that are no longer included in 2.1.* into the list in the wiki
> under  Does
> anybody have a complete list of these libraries?  We'll probably still
> need more specific documentation to make it clear what a user might have
> to do when moving from 2.0.* to 2.1.*.  Perhaps another page somewhere
> (similar to those under "Migrating to Apache Geronimo")?
> Joe
> Donald Woods wrote:
>> I think releasing 2.0.3 is in the best interest of the community,
>> given the security fixes that it contains.  It also gives us a way to
>> announce to our users that this will be the last 2.0.x release (which
>> we never really did for 1.1.x) and that they should start moving to
>> 2.1.x or 2.2 for any new projects.
>> -Donald
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> I apologize for not raising this question on the earlier thread.
>>> I'm wondering if it is a good idea to release a 2.0.3 at this point
>>> in time.  We've had several releases of 2.1.x (four) and we'll
>>> hopefully release 2.2 in the not too distant future.  I'm a little
>>> concerned that releasing a 2.0.3 now will just encourage people to
>>> continue on the 2.0.* base rather than taking the plunge and moving
>>> up to 2.1.*.  It's been a year since we released 2.0.2 and in
>>> addition to the security fixes there have been a lot of other
>>> fixes/enhancements in the 2.1 branch.
>>> What are the big stumbling blocks that prevent a user from moving
>>> from 2.0.2 to 2.1.3 to resolve the security concerns?
>>> Rather than releasing 2.0.3, should we maybe consider a greater focus
>>> on ensuring there is a smooth migration path from 2.0.2 to 2.1.3? 
>>> Once we have clearly identified any issues and ensured that we have
>>> adequate directions we could notify the user community that there
>>> will be no further 2.0.* releases and encourage them to move to
>>> 2.1.3.  It might actually be easier for us to release 2.0.3 in the
>>> short term, but sooner or later users will have to address the
>>> migration issues ... so I'm just wondering if it might be a better
>>> use of our time to address those migration issues now.
>>> Joe
>>> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>>> The 2.0.x brach got sidelined by an intermittent
>>>> ConcurrentModificationException during stress testing.  But, recently
>>>> there were a number of security issues found that apply to 2.0.2.
>>>> So, I think it's time to start the discussion for a Geronimo 2.0.3
>>>> release (It actually already was started).
>>>> Server fixes/enhancements are listed on the Release Status page
>>>> (work in
>>>> progress)-
>>>> Details on included security fixes in dependent components are
>>>> listed on
>>>> the Security page -
>>>> I have already begun moving issues into 2.0.4 - Does anyone have
>>>> additional fixes they would like to include in 2.0.3 before we cut the
>>>> branch and start the release process?
>>>> If I have moved an issue that you want to work on (And you have time to
>>>> work on it right away) move it back onto a 2.0.3 fix and assign it to
>>>> yourself.
>>>> Jay

View raw message