incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ and ServiceMix reports
Date Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:10:50 GMT
On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <> wrote:
> I think he is talking about having/needing a separate download for
> ServiceMix irrespective of whether an incubating jar is in Geronimo or
> not.

Basically if one needs servicemix, they get a whole package that has
> incubating all over it. Same with derby, if someone needed derby they
> won't download Geronimo.

They will download Derby. Does not mean that
> derby jar should not be in Geronimo. It could be, but needs to be
> marked properly (incubating sth or other in the jar name)

So we could include the incubating ActiveMQ code inside an actual production
Geronimo release - provided the ActiveMQ jars keep (their current name) of
incubator-activemq.jar? If so thats great, we can start integrating the
Apache ActiveMQ code into Geronimo ASAP - yay!

One more question then... ActiveMQ 4.0 is long overdue - I get asked when
its gonna be released everyday by someone somewhere :). We were originally
hoping to release it last year when most of the development was done but
then the incubation process started and we've been treading water a little
waiting until we thought we could actually ship some release candidates then
the full 4.0 GA. (Which is why there's not been as much developer discussion
as last year; we've mostly been in bug fix mode for months waiting until we
can release 4.0).

Up to now I'd thought we could only do a 4.0 release after leaving the
incubator. I remember last time I looked the incubator policy talked in
terms that podlings could only do "milestone" releases. Though I just reread
the policy document

and it doesn't seem to even mention that world any more.  So I guess that
means we could go ahead and start trying to do the 4.0-RC-* releases and try
get the full 4.0 release out - provided the Incubator PMC approves the
release and we release the code as "incubator-activemq" with all the
necessary disclaimers to avoid any confusion & to ensure users are aware the
code is still in the incubator.

Is this correct or have I got the wrong end of the stick again? :)



  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message