You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com> on 2010/01/29 16:24:52 UTC
Tracking Geronimo 3.0 work.
I've been trying to map the existing Jiras against the tentative
Geronomo 3.0 roadmap we have and with the existing set of Jiras we have,
it's proved to be fairly difficult to get a clear picture of where we
are, what work still needs to be done, and who's actually working on
what items. The OpenEJB project has done an excellent job of setting up
Jiras using major issues for specific enhancement areas and subtask
issues for individual pieces of work necessary to complete the task. A
simple wiki script makes it easy to get a good picture of the work
progress and the Jiras allow them to see who's working on what task.
Here's the web page with the consolidated information:
http://openejb.apache.org/ejb-31-roadmap.html
I'd like to start doing something similar for the Geronimo 3.0 release.
A good starting point would be to have a major Jira issue for each of
the Java EE 6 items that need to be updated. In other words, for each
spec item identified here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Road+map+for+Java+EE6+Web+Profile
there would be a major Jira issue plus additional subtasks that would be
required to implement the item. For example, the Servlet 3.0 task might
have the initial set of of Jiras:
Add Servlet 3.0 support
Implement servlet 3.0 spec jar
Upgrade geronimo to use servlet 3.0 spec jar
Upgrade tomcat plugin to Tomcat 7
Upgrade jetty plugin to Jetty 8
etc.
Additional subtasks can be added as additional work items are identified.
This table on the roadmap page gives a nice starting set of major tasks,
but there are obviously other major tasks related to the OSGi work.
These can be handled in a similar way, but I suspect we should gather an
initial starting set here in the dev list so they can be coordinated a
little and the tracking page can be set up accordingly.
Does this sound like a reasonable plan? I'll volunteer to open the
initial set of Jiras and try to migrate the existing Jiras to subtasks
of the major categories if we have a consensus here.
Rick
Re: Tracking Geronimo 3.0 work.
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
On 1/29/2010 1:26 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> Any work you are willing to do along these lines would be great! I
> wish we'd added an ee6 category a long time ago so we could have
> associated all the work already done with it. It may be difficult to
> find all the existing closed jiras that relate to already-implemented
> ee6 features.
>
> Do you think its appropriate to create new jiras for work that has
> been done without benefit of a jira? The related commits won't have
> the jira number in the commit message unless you go back and edit the
> commit message. I personally don't think there is much to be gained
> for this, I would only create jiras for work that has not yet been
> done. So for your example of servlet 3.0... we've already done the
> steps you list :-)
Just from the standpoint of being able to keep track of things, it would
be nice to have Jiras to keep track of items that are already
completed. In the case of OpenEJB, it sounded like they dealt with the
situation by linking the tracking Jira to ones that implemented the
actual work. I ran into this a lot while trying to put together the
wiki page on the jee6 work. Just trying to keep straight all of the
individual specs jars was an interesting exercise. It would be nice to
use the same mechanism to keep track of all of these, even if it means
having Jiras that don't have commits necessarily associated with them.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2010, at 7:24 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>> I've been trying to map the existing Jiras against the tentative
>> Geronomo 3.0 roadmap we have and with the existing set of Jiras we
>> have, it's proved to be fairly difficult to get a clear picture of
>> where we are, what work still needs to be done, and who's actually
>> working on what items. The OpenEJB project has done an excellent job
>> of setting up Jiras using major issues for specific enhancement areas
>> and subtask issues for individual pieces of work necessary to
>> complete the task. A simple wiki script makes it easy to get a good
>> picture of the work progress and the Jiras allow them to see who's
>> working on what task. Here's the web page with the consolidated
>> information:
>>
>> http://openejb.apache.org/ejb-31-roadmap.html
>>
>> I'd like to start doing something similar for the Geronimo 3.0
>> release. A good starting point would be to have a major Jira issue
>> for each of the Java EE 6 items that need to be updated. In other
>> words, for each spec item identified here:
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Road+map+for+Java+EE6+Web+Profile
>>
>>
>> there would be a major Jira issue plus additional subtasks that would
>> be required to implement the item. For example, the Servlet 3.0 task
>> might have the initial set of of Jiras:
>>
>> Add Servlet 3.0 support
>> Implement servlet 3.0 spec jar
>> Upgrade geronimo to use servlet 3.0 spec jar
>> Upgrade tomcat plugin to Tomcat 7
>> Upgrade jetty plugin to Jetty 8
>> etc.
>>
>> Additional subtasks can be added as additional work items are
>> identified.
>>
>> This table on the roadmap page gives a nice starting set of major
>> tasks, but there are obviously other major tasks related to the OSGi
>> work. These can be handled in a similar way, but I suspect we should
>> gather an initial starting set here in the dev list so they can be
>> coordinated a little and the tracking page can be set up accordingly.
>>
>> Does this sound like a reasonable plan? I'll volunteer to open the
>> initial set of Jiras and try to migrate the existing Jiras to
>> subtasks of the major categories if we have a consensus here.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>
>
Re: Tracking Geronimo 3.0 work.
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Any work you are willing to do along these lines would be great! I
wish we'd added an ee6 category a long time ago so we could have
associated all the work already done with it. It may be difficult to
find all the existing closed jiras that relate to already-implemented
ee6 features.
Do you think its appropriate to create new jiras for work that has
been done without benefit of a jira? The related commits won't have
the jira number in the commit message unless you go back and edit the
commit message. I personally don't think there is much to be gained
for this, I would only create jiras for work that has not yet been
done. So for your example of servlet 3.0... we've already done the
steps you list :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Jan 29, 2010, at 7:24 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> I've been trying to map the existing Jiras against the tentative
> Geronomo 3.0 roadmap we have and with the existing set of Jiras we
> have, it's proved to be fairly difficult to get a clear picture of
> where we are, what work still needs to be done, and who's actually
> working on what items. The OpenEJB project has done an excellent
> job of setting up Jiras using major issues for specific enhancement
> areas and subtask issues for individual pieces of work necessary to
> complete the task. A simple wiki script makes it easy to get a good
> picture of the work progress and the Jiras allow them to see who's
> working on what task. Here's the web page with the consolidated
> information:
>
> http://openejb.apache.org/ejb-31-roadmap.html
>
> I'd like to start doing something similar for the Geronimo 3.0
> release. A good starting point would be to have a major Jira issue
> for each of the Java EE 6 items that need to be updated. In other
> words, for each spec item identified here:
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Road+map+for+Java+EE6+Web+Profile
>
> there would be a major Jira issue plus additional subtasks that
> would be required to implement the item. For example, the Servlet
> 3.0 task might have the initial set of of Jiras:
>
> Add Servlet 3.0 support
> Implement servlet 3.0 spec jar
> Upgrade geronimo to use servlet 3.0 spec jar
> Upgrade tomcat plugin to Tomcat 7
> Upgrade jetty plugin to Jetty 8
> etc.
>
> Additional subtasks can be added as additional work items are
> identified.
>
> This table on the roadmap page gives a nice starting set of major
> tasks, but there are obviously other major tasks related to the OSGi
> work. These can be handled in a similar way, but I suspect we
> should gather an initial starting set here in the dev list so they
> can be coordinated a little and the tracking page can be set up
> accordingly.
>
> Does this sound like a reasonable plan? I'll volunteer to open the
> initial set of Jiras and try to migrate the existing Jiras to
> subtasks of the major categories if we have a consensus here.
>
> Rick
>