You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@geronimo.apache.org by Arsen Abdrakhmanov <ar...@gmail.com> on 2012/03/27 13:20:18 UTC
Geronimo release cycle
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
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Russell E Glaue <rg...@cait.org>.
Thanks for the clarification.
It is probably time for us to stamp the 3.0-beta branch as either 3.0-beta-2 or
3.0 full release any way.
We have made some significant advances in 3.0-beta-2 development.
-RG
On 03/29/2012 07:41 AM, Arsen Abdrakhmanov wrote:
> Dear Team,
>
> Thank you very much for your attention to my request and please, let me give
> small comment regarding my previous message.
>
> Frankly speaking, I have meant primarily the release cycle for 2.1.x and 2.2.x
> versions of Geronimo.
> We were not using the 3.0 version of Geronimo, as there was no stable non-beta
> release for it.
> Actually, we were using the 2.2.1 version of Geronimo in our previous project.
> For the moment, I am in position to make a decision for moving to the version
> 2.1.8 for new project, as the release is much newer.
>
> The question was, that if the minor versions were released at least
> semi-annually, it would be very usefull for us in terms of access to bug-fixed
> versions.
> In this case, we would never discuss in our company the variants with downgrade
> to previous major version of application server.
>
> Regarding the 3.0 version of Geronimo, I would be glad to use it in upcoming
> projects, but if the newer minor versions of 3.0.x could be released more
> frequently.
>
> Hope, you got my idea.
> Sorry for inconveniences caused.
>
> Best regards,
> Arsen Abdrakhmanov
>
>
>
> 2012/3/27 Arsen Abdrakhmanov <arsen.abdrakhmanov@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>>
>
> 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
>
>
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Mar 29, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Arsen Abdrakhmanov wrote:
> Dear Team,
>
> Thank you very much for your attention to my request and please, let me give small comment regarding my previous message.
>
> Frankly speaking, I have meant primarily the release cycle for 2.1.x and 2.2.x versions of Geronimo.
> We were not using the 3.0 version of Geronimo, as there was no stable non-beta release for it.
> Actually, we were using the 2.2.1 version of Geronimo in our previous project.
> For the moment, I am in position to make a decision for moving to the version 2.1.8 for new project, as the release is much newer.
Hi Arsen,
Thanks for the info. Releases take some considerate effort from the community. There's been a lot of focus on 3.0 (Java EE 6) over the past year or more. Which leads to reduced focus on older releases.
Some things that you can do to help:
1) Ask! If you're interested in a 2.2.x release, feel free to let the community know… The expression: "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" certainly applies. There's no guarantee, of course, but asking certainly helps… Committers will be more interested in generating a release, if they know people need it/want it.
2) Get involved. We'd love to have some help getting releases out. There are lots of ways to contribute -- bug fixes, patches for version updates, documentation, etc. TCK testing requires commit access. So, unfortunately, you have to earn commit before you're able to help with TCK testing efforts. However, showing interest in the project and helping out, in whatever way you can, will usually earn commit rights to the project.
>
> The question was, that if the minor versions were released at least semi-annually, it would be very usefull for us in terms of access to bug-fixed versions.
> In this case, we would never discuss in our company the variants with downgrade to previous major version of application server.
Good reminder.
>
> Regarding the 3.0 version of Geronimo, I would be glad to use it in upcoming projects, but if the newer minor versions of 3.0.x could be released more frequently.
>
> Hope, you got my idea.
> Sorry for inconveniences caused.
No problem at all. Please continue to provide comments and feedback.
--kevan
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Arsen Abdrakhmanov <ar...@gmail.com>.
Dear Team,
Thank you very much for your attention to my request and please, let me
give small comment regarding my previous message.
Frankly speaking, I have meant primarily the release cycle for 2.1.x and
2.2.x versions of Geronimo.
We were not using the 3.0 version of Geronimo, as there was no stable
non-beta release for it.
Actually, we were using the 2.2.1 version of Geronimo in our previous
project.
For the moment, I am in position to make a decision for moving to the
version 2.1.8 for new project, as the release is much newer.
The question was, that if the minor versions were released at least
semi-annually, it would be very usefull for us in terms of access to
bug-fixed versions.
In this case, we would never discuss in our company the variants with
downgrade to previous major version of application server.
Regarding the 3.0 version of Geronimo, I would be glad to use it in
upcoming projects, but if the newer minor versions of 3.0.x could be
released more frequently.
Hope, you got my idea.
Sorry for inconveniences caused.
Best regards,
Arsen Abdrakhmanov
2012/3/27 Arsen Abdrakhmanov <ar...@gmail.com>
> 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
>
>
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Shawn Jiang <ge...@gmail.com>.
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 <da...@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 <rg...@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
> >>> <ma...@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
> >>> <ma...@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
> >>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >>> Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM
> >>> Subject: Geronimo release cycle
> >>> To: user@geronimo.apache.org <ma...@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
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
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 <rg...@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
>>> <ma...@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
>>> <ma...@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
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>> Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM
>>> Subject: Geronimo release cycle
>>> To: user@geronimo.apache.org <ma...@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
>>>
>>
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Rex Wang <rw...@gmail.com>.
+1
I prefer trunk to 4.0, and 3.0-beta branch to 3.0 branch.
-Rex
2012/3/29 Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>
> 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 <rg...@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
> >> <ma...@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
> >> <ma...@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
> >> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM
> >> Subject: Geronimo release cycle
> >> To: user@geronimo.apache.org <ma...@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
> >>
> >
>
--
Lei Wang (Rex)
rwonly AT apache.org
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Mar 28, 2012, at 1:00 PM, 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.
Sounds good to me.
--kevan
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
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 <rg...@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
>> <ma...@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
>> <ma...@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
>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM
>> Subject: Geronimo release cycle
>> To: user@geronimo.apache.org <ma...@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
>>
>
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Russell E Glaue <rg...@cait.org>.
> 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
> <ma...@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
> <ma...@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
> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM
> Subject: Geronimo release cycle
> To: user@geronimo.apache.org <ma...@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
>
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Shawn Jiang <ge...@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 <fo...@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 <ar...@gmail.com>
>> Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM
>> Subject: Geronimo release cycle
>> To: 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
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Shawn Jiang <ge...@gmail.com>.
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.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Forrest Xia <fo...@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 <ar...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM
> Subject: Geronimo release cycle
> To: 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
Fwd: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>.
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 <ar...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM
Subject: Geronimo release cycle
To: 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
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Radim Kolar <hs...@filez.com>.
> Note that there was a fair amount of discussion on the dev list on this same subject. There's been a lot of focus by the community on a 3.0 release (and others). Which I expect will be soon.
You have also really low commit rate - about 15 commits per month - you
need to attract new developers.
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 28, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Radim Kolar wrote:
>
>> 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.
> I also feel that project is not very alive. Most alive open source application server project is Glassfish. but it has significant number of bugs. I already tried 2 times to deploy it in production - once for glassfish V2.0 and second few years later with glassfish 3.1.1 and had to step back.
>
> I currently use JBoss 7.1.1. Documentation for AS 7 is bad probably even worse then Geronimo docs, official forums are not much alive, posts has < 100 reads. Fighting with classloading issues in JBoss is challenging as well in geronimo, i was unable to solve some classloading issues as well - had to build own J2EE minimal stack and deploy it into Jetty 7. But i was more successful in fighting these problems in jboss then in Geronimo.
>
> As i understand open source community in general do not like J2EE concept and tends to use simpler solutions like tomcat, which means that OS J2EE app servers are not on community radar with exception of Glassfish - which is popular because its offered as J2EE download from oracle site.
Note that there was a fair amount of discussion on the dev list on this same subject. There's been a lot of focus by the community on a 3.0 release (and others). Which I expect will be soon. As always, anyone who is interested in helping with releases (e.g. 2.2.x) is welcome to lend a hand…
--kevan
Re: Geronimo release cycle
Posted by Radim Kolar <hs...@filez.com>.
> 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.
I also feel that project is not very alive. Most alive open source
application server project is Glassfish. but it has significant number
of bugs. I already tried 2 times to deploy it in production - once for
glassfish V2.0 and second few years later with glassfish 3.1.1 and had
to step back.
I currently use JBoss 7.1.1. Documentation for AS 7 is bad probably even
worse then Geronimo docs, official forums are not much alive, posts has
< 100 reads. Fighting with classloading issues in JBoss is challenging
as well in geronimo, i was unable to solve some classloading issues as
well - had to build own J2EE minimal stack and deploy it into Jetty 7.
But i was more successful in fighting these problems in jboss then in
Geronimo.
As i understand open source community in general do not like J2EE
concept and tends to use simpler solutions like tomcat, which means that
OS J2EE app servers are not on community radar with exception of
Glassfish - which is popular because its offered as J2EE download from
oracle site.