Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 91457 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2009 09:23:56 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Jun 2009 09:23:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 30545 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jun 2009 09:24:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 30448 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jun 2009 09:24:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 30440 invoked by uid 99); 16 Jun 2009 09:24:07 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:24:07 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rwonly@gmail.com designates 209.85.200.168 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.200.168] (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.168) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:23:56 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so1412750wfc.25 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:23:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/8+Kc8rz/QjAqZDjOPj9wrvAKlPiFicOB1fir0KOPdA=; b=qPmY3DS7Tp5QquE83bXU7fAR5LltMu4np57r8DHPv2N/fRE2fOYE9CNB6RcyqNZX4O MFGkf+b1Lu5n7obvET4JkBDdn/gnWRRYjbOntUA6J9KfvgBE+YjBg7iYqQVT6mibwmDy 43tDaRmafuCkE0svAxdm3YAVmWQEkNIpyDOHg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Agz9amG0nKVaJDnBIrWJQq1YzCngZXRrSOGiSYoyk5aYm3llhQ1BlN7xBX3UCy82A0 sYUL4d0capCL5hB5pUlOSweVL3HLsqvgUCP7Fa4ZRZ9OoBayX9ZuWTkmwaK18Pl7xgBG sRSQ7ujdXm42brPHf7eeTYUW4TZgGxWC9KjMY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.192.3 with SMTP id p3mr3866338wff.147.1245144214551; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:23:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <24032328.post@talk.nabble.com> References: <24032328.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:23:34 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Update the 2.2 release status page? From: Rex Wang To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd23b649a3e2f046c73ba0d X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --000e0cd23b649a3e2f046c73ba0d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How frequent do you think is the most appropriate for Geronimo? IMHO, too more releases in a year might give users the impression that the production is very young and not stable. Thank you -Rex 2009/6/15 Juergen Weber > > Hi, > > I think it would be a pity for 2.2 to appear only in 4Q2009 (hope, this > doesn't mean XMas ;-) > > Generally, I feel Geronimo's release cycles should be faster: > - Users would get bug fixes much earlier (there appeared several > interesting > fixes on the list here in the last weeks) > - there would be more and earlier feedback for new features (and new bugs= ) > - release early, release often > - the Geronimo web site would show more signs of life and the whole proje= ct > would look more active when there are more often News entries > - Getting a new release is like unwrapping a gift 8-) > > I am not sure how much more work shorter release cycles would mean for th= e > Geronimo team. But shouldn't it suffice to automatically build and run th= e > testsuite, at least for minor releases? > > Thanks you, > Juergen > > > > > Rex Wang-2 wrote: > > > > HI > > > > I notice a user in mail list who complained that the > > http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html is out > of > > date. > >>Ashwill, Steve (Facilities & Services) > >>Hello, > >>Can anyone tell me if there is a new roadmap in the works defining a > > release schedule for version 2.2. We have been developing based on the > > Geronimo 2.2 Release Status(OpenEJB 3.1), but if it will >not be releas= ed > > in > > the next few months we may need to re-factor to 2.1.4. Our support fol= ks > > are a bit hesitant to deploy to production using a snapshot version. > I=92ve > > checked > > http://cwiki.apache.org>>>/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html > > , but it has not been updated in a while. > >>Any guessimation as to when and if 2.2 will be released would be greatl= y > > appreciated. > >>Thanks, > >>Steve > > > > I think at least the dates following should update, can anyone help? > > Release Manager: > > Proposed Branch/freeze date: 12/12/08 1/9/09 1Q2009 -> 3Q2009 > > Proposed Release Candidate: 1/9/09 1/16/09 1Q2009 -> 4Q2009 > > Proposed Release date: 1/15/09 1/30/09 1Q2009 -> 4Q2009 > > > > > > -Rex > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Update-the-2.2-release-status-page--tp24030920s134p= 24032328.html > Sent from the Apache Geronimo - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > --000e0cd23b649a3e2f046c73ba0d Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How frequent do you think is the most appropriate for Geronimo?
IMHO, to= o more releases in a year might give users the impression that the producti= on is very young and not stable.


Thank you
-Rex

2009/6/15 Juergen Weber <weberjn@gmail.com>

Hi,

I think it would be a pity for 2.2 to appear only in 4Q2009 (hope, this
doesn't mean XMas ;-)

Generally, I feel Geronimo's release cycles should be faster:
- Users would get bug fixes much earlier (there appeared several interestin= g
fixes on the list here in the last weeks)
- there would be more and earlier feedback for new features (and new bugs)<= br> - release early, release often
- the Geronimo web site would show more signs of life and the whole project=
would look more active when there are more often News entries
- Getting a new release is like unwrapping a gift 8-)

I am not sure how much more work shorter release cycles would mean for the<= br> Geronimo team. But shouldn't it suffice to automatically build and run = the
testsuite, at least for minor releases?

Thanks you,
Juergen




Rex Wang-2 wrote:
>
> HI
>
> I notice a user in mail list who complained that the
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-relea= se-status.html is out of
> date.
>>Ashwill, Steve (Facilities & Services)
>>Hello,
>>Can anyone tell me if there is a new roadmap in the works defining = a
> release schedule for version 2.2. =A0We have been developing based on = the
> Geronimo 2.2 Release Status(OpenEJB 3.1), but if it will >not be re= leased
> in
> the next few months we may need to re-factor to 2.1.4. =A0Our support = folks
> are a bit hesitant to deploy to production using a snapshot version. = =A0I=92ve
> checked
> http://cwiki.apa= che.org>>>/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html
> , but it has not been updated in a while.
>>Any guessimation as to when and if 2.2 will be released would be gr= eatly
> appreciated.
>>Thanks,
>>Steve
>
> I think at least the dates following should update, can anyone help? > Release Manager:
> Proposed Branch/freeze date: 12/12/08 1/9/09 1Q2009 =A0 =A0-> =A03Q= 2009
> Proposed Release Candidate: 1/9/09 1/16/09 1Q2009 =A0 =A0-> =A04Q20= 09
> Proposed Release date: 1/15/09 1/30/09 1Q2009 =A0 =A0-> =A04Q2009 >
>
> -Rex
>
>

--
View this message in context: htt= p://www.nabble.com/Update-the-2.2-release-status-page--tp24030920s134p24032= 328.html
Sent from the Apache Geronimo - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


--000e0cd23b649a3e2f046c73ba0d--