incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: Request for creating the M2 release.
Date Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:32:30 GMT
Geronimo 1.2 does not depend on CXF but 2.0 has CXF as an optional  
WebServices component.  Another option would be for CXF to spin off  
another Milestone or some other versioned SNAPSHOT and you can pick  
that up.

On Feb 13, 2007, at 8:17 PM, adisakala@gmail.com wrote:

> Yoko depends on current snapshot of cxf. I believe cxf is planning  
> to release RC end of the month. So it might be worth coordinating  
> yoko 1.0 with CXF.
>
> Dain, does geronimo 1.2 depend on CXF?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:54:40
> To:yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request for creating the M2 release.
>
> That doesn't really work for me.  I'd like to release Geronimo 1.2 in
> the next two weeks and we need to the latest yoko code to pass the
> tck.  How about we release 1.0 now and a 1.0.1 refresh when the tools
> have been improved.  If it is only 4 weeks between release, that is
> great.  Users love it when projects release early *and* often :)
>
> -dain
>
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Mosur Ravi, Balaji wrote:
>
>> Also, I think the other components of yoko (binding & the tools)
>> can be made stable if given some time.
>>
>> How about sometime around March end? Is that a reasonable time frame?
>>
>> - Balaji
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:list@toolazydogs.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:24 AM
>> To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Request for creating the M2 release.
>>
>> This reflects my sentiments as well.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>> On Feb 10, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, it would be excellent to have comprehensive
>>> documentation.  For now, the software is complete and well tested,
>>> which is a lot more than I personally expect from 1.0 software.
>>> When we do get better documentation, we can quickly release a 1.1.
>>>
>>> -dain
>>>
>>> On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:29 AM, Lars K├╝hne wrote:
>>>
>>>> IMHO what's really missing for a 1.0 final release is the
>>>> documentation. I started some of it in the old wiki (http://
>>>> wiki.apache.org/incubator-yoko/OrbConfiguration), but that needs
>>>> to be migrated to cwiki or the distribution tar ball.
>>>>
>>>> Any chance that IONA would donate some of their docs? That would
>>>> be so much easier than trying to figure out the exact meaning of
>>>> each configuration option by reading the code.
>>>>
>>>> -Lars
>>>>
>>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>>> I think we should release 1.0 final.  The ORB is totally working
>>>>> now and it has been throughly tested by the J2EE 1.4 tck.
>>>>>
>>>>> -dain
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 8, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Geronimo has made great progress on the TCK using Yoko, and
>>>>>> we're starting to put things together for 1.2 release.  For the
>>>>>> 1.2 Beta release Geronimo shipped with an interim snapshot
>>>>>> version, but for the final 1.2 release, we'd like to use an
>>>>>> actual release version.  Can we get the process started to ship
>>>>>> an M2 release?  And more importantly, can we get it released in
>>>>>> a more timely fashion than was done for the M1 release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message