geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Tracking Geronimo 3.0 work.
Date Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:26:12 GMT
Any work you are willing to do along these lines would be great!  I  
wish we'd added an ee6 category a long time ago so we could have  
associated all the work already done with it.  It may be difficult to  
find all the existing closed jiras that relate to already-implemented  
ee6 features.

Do you think its appropriate to create new jiras for work that has  
been done without benefit of a jira?  The related commits won't have  
the jira number in the commit message unless  you go back and edit the  
commit message.  I personally don't think there is much to be gained  
for this, I would only create jiras for work that has not yet been  
done.  So for your example of servlet 3.0... we've already done the  
steps you list :-)

david jencks

On Jan 29, 2010, at 7:24 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:

> I've been trying to map the existing Jiras against the tentative  
> Geronomo 3.0 roadmap we have and with the existing set of Jiras we  
> have, it's proved to be fairly difficult to get a clear picture of  
> where we are, what work still needs to be done, and who's actually  
> working on what items.  The OpenEJB project has done an excellent  
> job of setting up Jiras using major issues for specific enhancement  
> areas and subtask issues for individual pieces of work necessary to  
> complete the task.  A simple wiki script makes it easy to get a good  
> picture of the work progress and the Jiras allow them to see who's  
> working on what task.  Here's the web page with the consolidated  
> information:
> I'd like to start doing something similar for the Geronimo 3.0  
> release.  A good starting point would be to have a major Jira issue  
> for each of the Java EE 6 items that need to be updated.  In other  
> words, for each spec item identified here:
> there would be a major Jira issue plus additional subtasks that  
> would be required to implement the item.  For example, the Servlet  
> 3.0 task might have the initial set of of Jiras:
> Add Servlet 3.0 support
>      Implement servlet 3.0 spec jar
>      Upgrade geronimo to use servlet 3.0 spec jar
>      Upgrade tomcat plugin to Tomcat 7
>      Upgrade jetty plugin to Jetty 8
>      etc.
> Additional subtasks can be added as additional work items are  
> identified.
> This table on the roadmap page gives a nice starting set of major  
> tasks, but there are obviously other major tasks related to the OSGi  
> work.  These can be handled in a similar way, but I suspect we  
> should gather an initial starting set here in the dev list so they  
> can be coordinated a little and the tracking page can be set up  
> accordingly.
> Does this sound like a reasonable plan?  I'll volunteer to open the  
> initial set of Jiras and try to migrate the existing Jiras to  
> subtasks of the major categories if we have a consensus here.
> Rick

View raw message