geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shawn Jiang <genspr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo release cycle
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:20:40 GMT
I'm open to move trunk to either 3.1 or 3.5/4.0

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:24 AM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>wrote:

> I do think we should release something like current beta as 3.0.  I have a
> slight preference for trunk to move to 4.0; at least to 3.5.  At current
> rate of progress it will be a very long time before the trunk code is
> really ready.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>
> > I consider the changes made in trunk quite substantial so I think I
> > would call trunk 4.x and call beta branch 3.x.
> >
> > Jarek
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Russell E Glaue <rglaue@cait.org>
> wrote:
> >>> move current trunk to 3.1 and change current beta branch to 3.0.
> >> +1
> >>
> >> As long as 3.0-beta-2 passes Java EE 1.6 tests and also provides no
> broken
> >> core/primary functionality we have 2.2, we should stamp it as 3.0.
> >>
> >> 3.1 can focus on the continuation of 3.x enhancements.
> >>
> >> -RG
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/28/2012 06:46 AM, Forrest Xia wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Shawn Jiang <genspring@gmail.com
> >>> <mailto:genspring@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>    1.x   J2EE 1.4
> >>>    2.0   Java EE 1.5
> >>>    2.1  Java EE 1.5
> >>>    2.2   Java EE 1.5
> >>>    3.0   Java EE 1.6
> >>>
> >>>    Considering the previous practice, we'd better to move current
> trunk to
> >>> 3.1
> >>>    and change current beta branch to 3.0.
> >>>
> >>> Sounds good. Any more idea?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>    On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com
> >>>    <mailto:forrestxm@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>        Saw this query, have an idea about the current release roadmap.
> >>>
> >>>        1. Can we move the current incomplete trunk work to version 4 of
> >>> geronimo?
> >>>        2. Rename 3.0-beta branch as the formal 3.0 release?
> >>>
> >>>        Any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>>        Forrest
> >>>
> >>>        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>        From: *Arsen Abdrakhmanov* <arsen.abdrakhmanov@gmail.com
> >>>        <mailto:arsen.abdrakhmanov@gmail.com>>
> >>>        Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM
> >>>        Subject: Geronimo release cycle
> >>>        To: user@geronimo.apache.org <mailto:user@geronimo.apache.org>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>        Dear Geronimo Team,
> >>>
> >>>        Actually, I am the fan of geronimo for more than 5 years
> already.
> >>>        For the moment, I am promoting the usage of Geronimo as a
> platform
> >>> for
> >>>        non-critical applications in our company (banking industry in
> KZ).
> >>>        According to our company's internal policy, only official
> releases
> >>> of
> >>>        open-source software products can be used for internal
> >>> applications.
> >>>
> >>>        Currently, the release cycle for Geronimo is about an year or
> even
> >>>        longer, so it takes significant amount of time before we could
> use
> >>> an
> >>>        updated version of software with bug fixes and enhancements.
> >>>
> >>>        Taking that into account, can you give any information on your
> >>> plans to
> >>>        accelerate the release cycle for new versions of Geronimo?
> >>>
> >>>        I think, it would be very useful for the whole geronimo user
> >>> community,
> >>>        if the releases were published at least semi-anually.
> >>>        Hope, it can also increase the popularity of Geronimo among
> other
> >>>        application servers.
> >>>
> >>>        Best regards,
> >>>        Arsen Abdrakhmanov
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>        --
> >>>        Thanks!
> >>>
> >>>        Regards, Forrest
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>    --
> >>>    Shawn
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> Regards, Forrest
> >>>
> >>
>
>


-- 
Shawn

Mime
View raw message