Thanks for the feedback Kevan!
Thanks for the email!
If anybody else struggles with Trygve's name, you might find this helpful: http://inogolo.com/pronunciation/Trygve (how could it be pronounced any other way!)
On Nov 16, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Trygve Sanne Hardersen wrote:
> Our company has done some work lately on upgrading the dependencies used by Geronimo 2.2. The most notable changes are:
>Those are some fairly significant changes. I haven't reviewed them in detail… In addition to the integration test issues, there are likely to be TCK issues to contend with.
> As you can see the Axis2 integration is still quite buggy, and will have to be improved (we're not using it internally).
> Are you interested in having these changes merged back into the Geronimo source repository? We would be very happy to see them accepted in some way.
In the rest of my note, I'm *not* going to be commenting on the details of these patches. There may be specific technical/philosophical problems with some of the changes. These problems would need to be resolved through community discussion. Note that this means there may be some give-and-take. There may be some parts of your changes that the community feels are wrong/incorrect. So, some parts of the patches may require change.
However, let's assume we can resolve any of these issues (I'd certainly hope so).
There has been a lot of community focus on 3.0. However, this does not mean our 2.1/2.2 branches are closed down… I am expecting to see additional releases out of these branches… However, the scope of your changes may go beyond a normal 2.2.x service release. I wouldn't be a big fan of a 2.3 release. However, it's not impossible either...
> We are aware that the first 3.0 beta has just been released (congrats!), and don't know how this fits into your 2.2 release policy. We have previously done internal Geronimo releases using patches, but as the changeset has grown, this approach is less and less practical. Our feeling is that we either have to get the work back into Geronimo in some way, or do a fork. One possibility is to branch 2.2, and apply our changes there.
So, my personal opinion -- I'd be interested in seeing your contributions make their way into Geronimo SVN. I would certainly hope that we can avoid a fork… I am assuming, however, that additional people (e.g. you) would be helping the community with integrating, testing, releasing, and *supporting* these changes. We're quite open to new contributors. And I would expect that it would not take long to become a committer on the project.
One final note -- I would not be in favor of *permanent* development on separate Geronimo branches (2.x vs. 3.x). So, I am assuming that given time -- the community would be working towards common goals.
Given the scope of these changes, I think a software grant would be required (either http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt or http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt ).
> You can find the latest patches here:
> GShell - https://hypobytes.com/svn/ymir/patches/trunk/gshell-alpha-1-606434.patch
> Geronimo - https://hypobytes.com/svn/ymir/patches/trunk/geronimo-2.2-1188546.patch
I'm sure there will be additional comments from other community members.