geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Forrest Xia <forres...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Geronimo 3.0 Release
Date Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:28:29 GMT
Questions about the target of 3.0 final:
1. Is Java EE 6 full compliance still the goal of G 3.0 final release?
2. do we still want to maintain two assemblies both with java ee 6
compliant?

>From the tck results, the jetty assembly is kind of far away from java ee 6
compliant.

Forrest

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Russell E Glaue <rglaue@cait.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 08/23/2011 11:10 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Russell E Glaue wrote:
>>
>>  If we want the community to help us test the jetty assembly, do we
>>> release it too - somehow?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I think so.
>>
>>
>>> Can we comment out the jetty assemblies for a release, as you said, then
>>> uncomment them and produce a "3.0 Beta" for the jetty assembly?
>>>
>>> Is it appropriate to have a tomcat assembly in 3.0, but the jetty
>>> assemblies in 3.0-Beta?  I understand this potentially could be confusing.
>>> Is it necessary for the community to test a version that is not a
>>> daily-released snapshot? Or do we rely on the community testing the jetty
>>> assemblies only from the snapshot releases, for providing feedback?
>>>
>>
>> As we currently maintain the source in a single source distribution, this
>> would be awkward/difficult. It might be possible, but not desirable, IMO
>>
>> Released versions make things much easier. "I'm running on M2 and I've got
>> a problem" is much easier to deal with than "I have a problem on trunk". For
>> the latter, the questions are when did you build? What dependencies are you
>> using? etc, etc.
>>
>> Releases give us something to talk about. They mark progress. They set
>> expectations.  We're way overdue and I don't want to wait any longer... :)
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>
> I agree. In my other post in another part of this thread, I was saying we
> need to release 3.0 even with jetty assemblies not stable. This will give us
> something to ask the community to help us test and provide feedback on the
> jetty assemblies.
>
> I for one will be one of those community testers.
>
> The question I raised here is do we do one of the following in order to
> release a 3.0 final:
> 1. release a final 3.0 without jetty assemblies, and tell the community to
> test the jetty assemblies from the snapshots.
> - You don't prefer this, and neither do I. But this thread was seeming to
> lead in this direction.
> 2. release a 3.0-beta with jetty assemblies, and then immediately release a
> final 3.0 without jetty assemblies.
> - This seems confusing, but I felt better than option 1.
>
> If we are fine with releasing a beta, and not a final, then neither of
> these options are necessary to consider.
>
> And it would seem we are now going for a Beta release, which seems to be a
> good decision from my viewpoint.
>
> -RG
>

Mime
View raw message