You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> on 2008/04/16 22:09:03 UTC
Geronimo 2.1.1 RELEASE-NOTE & README questions.
RELEASE_NOTES:
1) I've noticed that we actually have 2 RELEASE_NOTES-2.1.txt files in
our source. They are both identical. One is in our root ...
branches/2.1.1/RELEASE-NOTES-2.1.txt. The other is
branches/2.1.1/assemblies/geronimo-boilerplate-minimal/src/main/underlay/RELEASE_NOTES-2.1.txt.
Are both of these necessary? If not, which one is really required?
2) How elaborate do the release notes need to be for a maintenance
release like 2.1.1? For example, our 2.1 release notes included a list
of enhancements explaining each. I was just planning to list the JIRAs
that were included in the release since most items are bug fixes and
remove the 2.1 enhancement content. Is that sufficient and what we have
done in the past?
3) Why is the version number in the name? I assume that I need to
rename the current one to reflect that this is 2.1.1 ... but it might be
better to just remove the version number completely when I rename it.
README.txt:
4) As with the RELEASE_NOTES we also have 2 instances of the README.txt
file in our source. One is in our root ... branches/2.1.1/README.txt.
The other is
branches/2.1.1/assemblies/geronimo-boilerplate-minimal/src/main/underlay/README.txt.
There is one minor difference between the 2 files. Are both of these
necessary and if not, which one is required?
Thanks,
Joe
Re: Geronimo 2.1.1 RELEASE-NOTE & README questions.
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Kevan Miller wrote:
> Sorry, started typing this yesterday and got distracted...
>
> On Apr 16, 2008, at 5:04 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> RELEASE_NOTES:
>>> 1) I've noticed that we actually have 2 RELEASE_NOTES-2.1.txt files
>>> in our source. They are both identical. One is in our root ...
>>> branches/2.1.1/RELEASE-NOTES-2.1.txt. The other is
>>> branches/2.1.1/assemblies/geronimo-boilerplate-minimal/src/main/underlay/RELEASE_NOTES-2.1.txt.
>>> Are both of these necessary? If not, which one is really required?
>
> The one in branches/2.1.1/ is for source distributions. The copy in
> underlay/ is for binary distributions. If you can figure out how to
> include the branches/2.1.1/ copy into our binary distributions, then
> just that one is sufficient. Otherwise, we should have both...
>
>>>
>>> 2) How elaborate do the release notes need to be for a maintenance
>>> release like 2.1.1? For example, our 2.1 release notes included a
>>> list of enhancements explaining each. I was just planning to list
>>> the JIRAs that were included in the release since most items are bug
>>> fixes and remove the 2.1 enhancement content. Is that sufficient and
>>> what we have done in the past?
>>
>> If it is only bug fixes then that should be the focus, no need to
>> include the "Geronimo 2.1 Enhancements" again I guess.
>> We need to make sure we clearly mention this is a maintenance release
>> and that no new functionality has been introduced
>
> Personally, I'd make the bug fixes cumulative -- 2.1 enhancements +
> 2.1.1 bug fixes. Next service release we add 2.1.2 bug fixes.
I was originally thinking the same thing ... then I checked back at
2.0.2 and 2.0 to discover that the original enhancements were not
included in subsequent release notes. However, since we were both
thinking the same thing I'll go with my original intent and update the
release notes the wiki to include both.
>
>>
>>
>>> 3) Why is the version number in the name? I assume that I need to
>>> rename the current one to reflect that this is 2.1.1 ... but it might
>>> be better to just remove the version number completely when I rename it.
>>
>> For one, it help us develop/maintain the release notes in the wiki
>> (can't have 2 files with the same name). Second, I guess it's the
>> fastest way to know the installed version. Specially when you have
>> multiple installs and have been chopping the <geronimo_home> directory
>> to single characters to run "worry free" on certain platform ;-)
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>>
>>> README.txt:
>>> 4) As with the RELEASE_NOTES we also have 2 instances of the
>>> README.txt file in our source. One is in our root ...
>>> branches/2.1.1/README.txt. The other is
>>> branches/2.1.1/assemblies/geronimo-boilerplate-minimal/src/main/underlay/README.txt.
>>> There is one minor difference between the 2 files. Are both of these
>>> necessary and if not, which one is required?
>
> Same reason as above...
>
> --kevan
>
Re: Geronimo 2.1.1 RELEASE-NOTE & README questions.
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, started typing this yesterday and got distracted...
On Apr 16, 2008, at 5:04 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>> RELEASE_NOTES:
>> 1) I've noticed that we actually have 2 RELEASE_NOTES-2.1.txt files
>> in our source. They are both identical. One is in our root ...
>> branches/2.1.1/RELEASE-NOTES-2.1.txt. The other is branches/2.1.1/
>> assemblies/geronimo-boilerplate-minimal/src/main/underlay/
>> RELEASE_NOTES-2.1.txt. Are both of these necessary? If not, which
>> one is really required?
The one in branches/2.1.1/ is for source distributions. The copy in
underlay/ is for binary distributions. If you can figure out how to
include the branches/2.1.1/ copy into our binary distributions, then
just that one is sufficient. Otherwise, we should have both...
>>
>> 2) How elaborate do the release notes need to be for a maintenance
>> release like 2.1.1? For example, our 2.1 release notes included a
>> list of enhancements explaining each. I was just planning to list
>> the JIRAs that were included in the release since most items are
>> bug fixes and remove the 2.1 enhancement content. Is that
>> sufficient and what we have done in the past?
>
> If it is only bug fixes then that should be the focus, no need to
> include the "Geronimo 2.1 Enhancements" again I guess.
> We need to make sure we clearly mention this is a maintenance
> release and that no new functionality has been introduced
Personally, I'd make the bug fixes cumulative -- 2.1 enhancements +
2.1.1 bug fixes. Next service release we add 2.1.2 bug fixes.
>
>
>> 3) Why is the version number in the name? I assume that I need to
>> rename the current one to reflect that this is 2.1.1 ... but it
>> might be better to just remove the version number completely when I
>> rename it.
>
> For one, it help us develop/maintain the release notes in the wiki
> (can't have 2 files with the same name). Second, I guess it's the
> fastest way to know the installed version. Specially when you have
> multiple installs and have been chopping the <geronimo_home>
> directory to single characters to run "worry free" on certain
> platform ;-)
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
>> README.txt:
>> 4) As with the RELEASE_NOTES we also have 2 instances of the
>> README.txt file in our source. One is in our root ... branches/
>> 2.1.1/README.txt. The other is branches/2.1.1/assemblies/geronimo-
>> boilerplate-minimal/src/main/underlay/README.txt. There is one
>> minor difference between the 2 files. Are both of these necessary
>> and if not, which one is required?
Same reason as above...
--kevan
Re: Geronimo 2.1.1 RELEASE-NOTE & README questions.
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> RELEASE_NOTES:
> 1) I've noticed that we actually have 2 RELEASE_NOTES-2.1.txt files in
> our source. They are both identical. One is in our root ...
> branches/2.1.1/RELEASE-NOTES-2.1.txt. The other is
> branches/2.1.1/assemblies/geronimo-boilerplate-minimal/src/main/underlay/RELEASE_NOTES-2.1.txt.
> Are both of these necessary? If not, which one is really required?
>
>
> 2) How elaborate do the release notes need to be for a maintenance
> release like 2.1.1? For example, our 2.1 release notes included a list
> of enhancements explaining each. I was just planning to list the JIRAs
> that were included in the release since most items are bug fixes and
> remove the 2.1 enhancement content. Is that sufficient and what we have
> done in the past?
If it is only bug fixes then that should be the focus, no need to include the "Geronimo 2.1 Enhancements" again I guess.
We need to make sure we clearly mention this is a maintenance release and that no new functionality has been introduced
>
>
> 3) Why is the version number in the name? I assume that I need to
> rename the current one to reflect that this is 2.1.1 ... but it might be
> better to just remove the version number completely when I rename it.
>
For one, it help us develop/maintain the release notes in the wiki (can't have 2 files with the same name).
Second, I guess it's the fastest way to know the installed version. Specially when you have multiple installs and have been chopping the <geronimo_home> directory to single characters to run "worry free" on certain platform ;-)
Cheers!
Hernan
>
> README.txt:
> 4) As with the RELEASE_NOTES we also have 2 instances of the README.txt
> file in our source. One is in our root ... branches/2.1.1/README.txt.
> The other is
> branches/2.1.1/assemblies/geronimo-boilerplate-minimal/src/main/underlay/README.txt.
> There is one minor difference between the 2 files. Are both of these
> necessary and if not, which one is required?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
Re: Geronimo 2.1.1 RELEASE-NOTE & README questions.
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
I've created an initial version of the Release Notes in the wiki at this
location: http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC21/release-notes-211txt.html
If there are no issues I will go ahead and include this exact same
content in a RELEASE-NOTES-2.1.1.TXT for the 2.1.1 branch.
Any opinion on which of the 2 locations I mentioned earlier is the
correct location for the RELEASE-NOTES? If I don't hear anything I'll
just include it in both places as we did for 2.1. Ditto for the
README.TXT and it's 2 locations (after I get them both in sync).
Joe