geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Release GEP more frequently
Date Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:07:58 GMT
+1 on adding a forth digit, while maintaining existing 1.1-2.2 server
support in the same GEP 2.2.x.x build, along with some wiki updates
explaining which versions should be used for given server/Eclipse


On 3/5/10 3:30 AM, Delos wrote:
> Hi,
> Hopefully, we can make a decision on this.-:)
> 2010/3/4 Delos < <>>
>     Thanks for  your comments! Seems no objection for more frequent
>     releases till now, but there still some advices about implementation
>     details.Here are my answers to some of your questions.
>     *1) (Kevan) I will note that this proposal doesn't work too well for
>     users of previous versions of the Geronimo server. What versions of
>     G 2.1.x would a GEP 2.2.y.z correspond to? Or are you suggesting
>     that G 2.1 users should use a GEP 2.1.x adapter?*
>     In fact, the problems always exist. Until now, users of G server
>     2.1.x have two choices, one is 2.1.x adapter and another is 2.2.x
>     adapter. I recommend user to use GEP 2.1.x adapter, because the
>     server dependencies of GEP is in same version as server. I think we
>     may have another discussion about this problem, since it's not
>     brought by the suggestion.
>     *2)About the forth digit *
>     Just as Donald said, the best practice of forth digit for a single
>     eclipse plugin and feature is in format as *a_vDate*, for example,
> But it's only for single plugin or feature.
>     As I know, a product of eclipse plugins is never in format like
>     this. Take WTP for example, you may see date suffix in its plugins
>     and features, but we always say WTP 3.2.0 instead of WTP
>     3.2.0_v20100302.  Anyway, I strongly agree the features and plugins
>     in GEP adopt version number like this. But the version number for
>     whole GEP won't contains the date suffix.
>     *3) About backward compatibility*
>     v1.1 adapter is added in GEP 2.2 due to this JIRA
> think
>     it's a special case for GEP.
>     IMO, GEP should only contains adapters for servers which are still
>     improved by Geronimo community. Because both 2.1.x branch and 2.2.x
>     branch of G server are active, I agree GEP 3.0 contains adapters for
>     v2.1 and v2.2. In future, if any version of G server isn't supported
>     any more, we may remove its adapter from GEP.
>     Any other comments? To avoid any surprise in future release, I hope
>     more PMC members can get involved in this thread.-:)
>     2010/3/4 Kevan Miller <
>     <>>
>         On Mar 3, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Rex Wang wrote:
>>         IIRC, current approach is any GEP 2.2.* has the ability to
>>         support server 2.1.*,  2.0.*, even 1.1.*
>>         However, I do not think it is a best practice, because as the
>>         increase of server's version number, GEP might become more and
>>         more overstaffed.. and it is hard to tell at which time point
>>         the lower version server is out of service in the latest GEP.
>>         Also, for instance, if there is a new G 2.1.x release, which
>>         version of GEP shall we update to support it, the GEP2.2.y or
>>         GEP2.1.z or Both ?
>         Right. Would have to hunt through the archives. At one point we
>         had dropped 1.1 support in GEP (IIRC), but then it was added
>         back in. Tim would remember better than I. 
>>         I think the main advantage of staying the version numbers in
>>         sync with server is that it makes user very clear to know
>>         which GEP can work with a certain server. However, if we adopt
>>         this and make release more frequently, we should maintenance
>>         GEP in different branch. That is, GEP 2.2.x.201012345678 only
>>         support all the 2.2.y server(where y<=x), and not support
>>         2.1.*, 1.1,*, so that if you try add a new server runtime in
>>         eclipse, you won't see a pretty long list that contains all
>>         Geronimo server versions..
>         I think we need to support at least one back-level version of
>         the server. Personally, I would like for GEP 3.0 to support 2.2
>         and 2.1, at least. But that's just me. I confess that I'm not in
>         touch with the complexities this might introduce into GEP.
>         --kevan
>     -- 
>     Best Regards,
>     Delos
> -- 
> Best Regards,
> Delos

View raw message