You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@geronimo.apache.org by Dain Sundstrom <ds...@gluecode.com> on 2004/11/11 04:35:21 UTC
ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
The 1.0-M3 release is cut
Download here:
http://cvs.apache.org/dist/geronimo/v1.0-M3/geronimo-1.0-M3.zip
http://cvs.apache.org/dist/geronimo/v1.0-M3/geronimo-1.0-M3.tar.gz
Release notes:
http://cvs.apache.org/dist/geronimo/v1.0-M3/RELEASE-NOTES-1.0-M3.txt
Enjoy!
The Geronimo Team
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by David Blevins <db...@gluecode.com>.
On Feb 7, 2005, at 9:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Feb 7, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Preston L. Bannister wrote:
>
>> Yes, I checked and noticed the commit messages (on the mailing list).
>> Hard to pin a specific significance - detail but no insight.
>>
>
> How about our release notes? You have any suggestions on how we can
> improve those?
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/dist/geronimo/v1.0-M3/RELEASE-NOTES-1.0-M3.txt
>
You know, I was just looking at our M3 release notes, and it's really
ironic you used the words "specific significance." Here are some
section titles from the release notes:
* Significant Changes Since the M2 Release
* Significant Missing Features
* Specific Issues Addressed in M3 Release
It's the most i've smiled all day! Should buy you beer.
-David
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by David Blevins <db...@gluecode.com>.
On Feb 7, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
> what about putting the release date into the release notes?
Dunno how we missed that :)
Ok, i've added release dates to our front page and download page. They
should show up next time the site is regenerated.
Those dates are:
Geronimio 1.0 M1 (May 07, 2004)
Geronimio 1.0 M2 (September 09, 2004)
Geronimio 1.0 M3 (November 10, 2004)
Thanks,
David
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:04:01 -0500, toby cabot <to...@caboteria.org> wrote:
> Bruce, Geronimo Team,
>
> "What we've got here, is a failure to communicate."
>
> There's a difference between "progress" and "the appearance of
> progess" and both are important. There's a *lot* of progress
> happening, and you guys are justifiably proud of that progress, but
> the message that you're getting here is that it's harder than it
> should be for "outsiders" to figure that out.
>
> It's probably hard for people to really understand this if they're too
> close to the project, but as a gedankenexperiment try pretending that
> you're some random guy that's heard about Geronimo and wants to find
> out more about it. So you go to geronimo.apache.org, maybe look at
> the releases on the front page, maybe click on the "news" link, and
> for 99.99% of the people that's it, they're gone. I think you'll
> agree that from that perspective the *appearance* of progress is way
> out of line with the *actual* progress. I think that will probably
> push a lot of people away. If nothing else, it's troll food.
>
> So in the spirit of constructive criticism I'll offer a few
> suggestions that I hope will make the *appearance* of progress more
> closely reflect the *actual* progress:
>
> 1. The code in the svn repo is light years more functional than the
> code on the front page of the website, and releases are disruptive and
> time-consuming (and thus infrequent), so maybe someone can add a note
> to the "Downloads" section of the home page, something like:
>
> Geronimo development is moving quickly, so we recommend that you get
> a copy of the source code and build it, rather than use any binary release
> that's more than a month old. By building from source you'll get
> the latest functionality and you'll also be one step closer to being
> able to contribute to Geronimo. Instructions for building Geronimo
> can be found on the Geronimo wiki at
> http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/Building.
>
> 2. From mailing list traffic I've seen it looks as if the source
> releases are broken (at least the tarballs), and they're definitely
> obsolete and unmaintained, so why not just get rid of them entirely?
> People who are interested in the code would be *much* better served by
> getting it from source control.
>
> 3. A couple of people mentioned that a lot of work is going on behind
> the scenes that can't be publicised because of agreements with Sun,
> etc etc. So why not add a note to the News page indicating that?
> Something like:
>
> The Geronimo Development Team is now working on J2EE certification.
> Because of our agreements with Sun we're not allowed say anything
> specific about our status, but we're working hard and making
> progress!
>
> 4. There *is* a lot more news about Geronimo than is on the news page.
> Didn't EJBQL just land the other day? That's significant! Maybe
> moving news to the wiki would make it easier for folks to add items
> that they think are important. Hell, if nobody's got the time to add
> items to the news page maybe the link on the home page should point to
> http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/RecentChanges . That page isn't all
> that easy to read but at least it's got lots of recent changes to it.
>
> I believe that a small amount of time spent bringing appearances in
> line with reality would be well spent in terms of saving time by not
> having discussions like this one. It might even attract more people
> to Geronimo, at least it won't turn them away. If folks agree with
> the gist of these ideas I can submit a patch to the web site.
Excellent suggestions, Toby. Thank you for the input.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
toby cabot wrote:
>
> I believe that a small amount of time spent bringing appearances in
> line with reality would be well spent in terms of saving time by not
> having discussions like this one. It might even attract more people
> to Geronimo, at least it won't turn them away. If folks agree with
> the gist of these ideas I can submit a patch to the web site.
>
I wholeheartedly agree, and thank you.
--
Jeremy
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <ds...@gluecode.com>.
Excellent ideas!
+1 submit a patch
Also you can update the wiki imedately. Actually, feel free to make
"big" changes the the xdocs. There is no one maintaining them, so if
you have the motivation and time, I'm sure no one will object. Heck
I've been wanting to move our site away from a maven auto-generated
site for a long time, but I simply don't have the time.
-dain
--
Dain Sundstrom
Chief Architect
Gluecode Software
310.536.8355, ext. 26
On Feb 9, 2005, at 9:04 AM, toby cabot wrote:
> Bruce, Geronimo Team,
>
> "What we've got here, is a failure to communicate."
>
> There's a difference between "progress" and "the appearance of
> progess" and both are important. There's a *lot* of progress
> happening, and you guys are justifiably proud of that progress, but
> the message that you're getting here is that it's harder than it
> should be for "outsiders" to figure that out.
>
> It's probably hard for people to really understand this if they're too
> close to the project, but as a gedankenexperiment try pretending that
> you're some random guy that's heard about Geronimo and wants to find
> out more about it. So you go to geronimo.apache.org, maybe look at
> the releases on the front page, maybe click on the "news" link, and
> for 99.99% of the people that's it, they're gone. I think you'll
> agree that from that perspective the *appearance* of progress is way
> out of line with the *actual* progress. I think that will probably
> push a lot of people away. If nothing else, it's troll food.
>
> So in the spirit of constructive criticism I'll offer a few
> suggestions that I hope will make the *appearance* of progress more
> closely reflect the *actual* progress:
>
> 1. The code in the svn repo is light years more functional than the
> code on the front page of the website, and releases are disruptive and
> time-consuming (and thus infrequent), so maybe someone can add a note
> to the "Downloads" section of the home page, something like:
>
> Geronimo development is moving quickly, so we recommend that you get
> a copy of the source code and build it, rather than use any binary
> release
> that's more than a month old. By building from source you'll get
> the latest functionality and you'll also be one step closer to being
> able to contribute to Geronimo. Instructions for building Geronimo
> can be found on the Geronimo wiki at
> http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/Building.
>
> 2. From mailing list traffic I've seen it looks as if the source
> releases are broken (at least the tarballs), and they're definitely
> obsolete and unmaintained, so why not just get rid of them entirely?
> People who are interested in the code would be *much* better served by
> getting it from source control.
>
> 3. A couple of people mentioned that a lot of work is going on behind
> the scenes that can't be publicised because of agreements with Sun,
> etc etc. So why not add a note to the News page indicating that?
> Something like:
>
> The Geronimo Development Team is now working on J2EE certification.
> Because of our agreements with Sun we're not allowed say anything
> specific about our status, but we're working hard and making
> progress!
>
> 4. There *is* a lot more news about Geronimo than is on the news page.
> Didn't EJBQL just land the other day? That's significant! Maybe
> moving news to the wiki would make it easier for folks to add items
> that they think are important. Hell, if nobody's got the time to add
> items to the news page maybe the link on the home page should point to
> http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/RecentChanges . That page isn't all
> that easy to read but at least it's got lots of recent changes to it.
>
> I believe that a small amount of time spent bringing appearances in
> line with reality would be well spent in terms of saving time by not
> having discussions like this one. It might even attract more people
> to Geronimo, at least it won't turn them away. If folks agree with
> the gist of these ideas I can submit a patch to the web site.
>
> Regards,
> Toby
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by Mark Stang <ma...@markjstang.com>.
I tried to build using the wiki instructions and it failed. It failed:
BUILD FAILED
File...... /home/mstang/.maven/plugins/maven-multiproject-plugin-1.3/plugin.jelly
Element... maven:reactor
Line...... 216
Column.... 9
The build cannot continue because of the following unsatisfied
dependency:
scout-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
Total time: 8 minutes 43 seconds
Finished at: Sat Feb 19 21:01:39 MST 2005
The first one failed also.
It seems that the build system is way to complex for anyone else to use.
I tried to build using the downloads and that failed also.
My evaluation is that, while Geronimo has potential, at this time it
isn't even at the beta state.
regards,
Mark
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 12:04 -0500, toby cabot wrote:
> Bruce, Geronimo Team,
>
> "What we've got here, is a failure to communicate."
>
> There's a difference between "progress" and "the appearance of
> progess" and both are important. There's a *lot* of progress
> happening, and you guys are justifiably proud of that progress, but
> the message that you're getting here is that it's harder than it
> should be for "outsiders" to figure that out.
>
> It's probably hard for people to really understand this if they're too
> close to the project, but as a gedankenexperiment try pretending that
> you're some random guy that's heard about Geronimo and wants to find
> out more about it. So you go to geronimo.apache.org, maybe look at
> the releases on the front page, maybe click on the "news" link, and
> for 99.99% of the people that's it, they're gone. I think you'll
> agree that from that perspective the *appearance* of progress is way
> out of line with the *actual* progress. I think that will probably
> push a lot of people away. If nothing else, it's troll food.
>
> So in the spirit of constructive criticism I'll offer a few
> suggestions that I hope will make the *appearance* of progress more
> closely reflect the *actual* progress:
>
> 1. The code in the svn repo is light years more functional than the
> code on the front page of the website, and releases are disruptive and
> time-consuming (and thus infrequent), so maybe someone can add a note
> to the "Downloads" section of the home page, something like:
>
> Geronimo development is moving quickly, so we recommend that you get
> a copy of the source code and build it, rather than use any binary release
> that's more than a month old. By building from source you'll get
> the latest functionality and you'll also be one step closer to being
> able to contribute to Geronimo. Instructions for building Geronimo
> can be found on the Geronimo wiki at
> http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/Building.
>
> 2. From mailing list traffic I've seen it looks as if the source
> releases are broken (at least the tarballs), and they're definitely
> obsolete and unmaintained, so why not just get rid of them entirely?
> People who are interested in the code would be *much* better served by
> getting it from source control.
>
> 3. A couple of people mentioned that a lot of work is going on behind
> the scenes that can't be publicised because of agreements with Sun,
> etc etc. So why not add a note to the News page indicating that?
> Something like:
>
> The Geronimo Development Team is now working on J2EE certification.
> Because of our agreements with Sun we're not allowed say anything
> specific about our status, but we're working hard and making
> progress!
>
> 4. There *is* a lot more news about Geronimo than is on the news page.
> Didn't EJBQL just land the other day? That's significant! Maybe
> moving news to the wiki would make it easier for folks to add items
> that they think are important. Hell, if nobody's got the time to add
> items to the news page maybe the link on the home page should point to
> http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/RecentChanges . That page isn't all
> that easy to read but at least it's got lots of recent changes to it.
>
> I believe that a small amount of time spent bringing appearances in
> line with reality would be well spent in terms of saving time by not
> having discussions like this one. It might even attract more people
> to Geronimo, at least it won't turn them away. If folks agree with
> the gist of these ideas I can submit a patch to the web site.
>
> Regards,
> Toby
--
Mark Stang <ma...@markjstang.com>
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by si...@insession.com.
>
> On the topic of the mailing lists...
>
> Around Sept 2004, I raised an issue that dev mail list archive search
> functionality is not working. I sent a mail to infrastructure and got
no
> response. I raised an infrastructure JIRA issue and got no response.
>
> For people new to the project, one of the first things they will want to
> do is be able to search for messages on certain topics. When one does a
> search for a common term, such as EJB and only sees results from 2003,
> they could be forgiven for thinking not much is happening. If you
search
> for GBeans you will get no results in the search.
>
> Does anyone have contacts with the right people to get this fixed?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
Would you believe I just got a mail from JIRA this morning (would have
been before I wrote the above mail) showing the issue being updated.
Spooky :-)
Looks like I had the wrong component specified in the issue. I think we
should still chase this up.
Thanks,
John
----------------------------------
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-117?page=history ]
Roy T. Fielding updated INFRA-117:
----------------------------------
Component: Eyebrowse
(was: Mailing Lists)
> eyebrowse search of dev@geronimo.apache.org doesn't find messages from
2004
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: INFRA-117
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-117
> Project: Infrastructure
> Type: Bug
> Components: Eyebrowse
> Reporter: John Sisson
>
> I have been trying to search the Geronimo dev list archives (both
subjects and the body) and have found the search isn't picking up any
messages from 2004 (but it is picking up messages from 2003).
> The following does not work:
>
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SearchList?listName=dev@geronimo.apache.org
> FYI, The Geronimo user list archive works fine:
>
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SearchList?listName=user@geronimo.apache.org
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by si...@insession.com.
toby cabot <to...@caboteria.org> wrote on 10/02/2005 04:04:01 AM:
<snip>
>
> 2. From mailing list traffic I've seen it looks as if the source
> releases are broken (at least the tarballs), and they're definitely
> obsolete and unmaintained, so why not just get rid of them entirely?
> People who are interested in the code would be *much* better served by
> getting it from source control.
>
<snip>
On the topic of the mailing lists...
Around Sept 2004, I raised an issue that dev mail list archive search
functionality is not working. I sent a mail to infrastructure and got no
response. I raised an infrastructure JIRA issue and got no response.
For people new to the project, one of the first things they will want to
do is be able to search for messages on certain topics. When one does a
search for a common term, such as EJB and only sees results from 2003,
they could be forgiven for thinking not much is happening. If you search
for GBeans you will get no results in the search.
Does anyone have contacts with the right people to get this fixed?
Thanks,
John
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by toby cabot <to...@caboteria.org>.
Bruce, Geronimo Team,
"What we've got here, is a failure to communicate."
There's a difference between "progress" and "the appearance of
progess" and both are important. There's a *lot* of progress
happening, and you guys are justifiably proud of that progress, but
the message that you're getting here is that it's harder than it
should be for "outsiders" to figure that out.
It's probably hard for people to really understand this if they're too
close to the project, but as a gedankenexperiment try pretending that
you're some random guy that's heard about Geronimo and wants to find
out more about it. So you go to geronimo.apache.org, maybe look at
the releases on the front page, maybe click on the "news" link, and
for 99.99% of the people that's it, they're gone. I think you'll
agree that from that perspective the *appearance* of progress is way
out of line with the *actual* progress. I think that will probably
push a lot of people away. If nothing else, it's troll food.
So in the spirit of constructive criticism I'll offer a few
suggestions that I hope will make the *appearance* of progress more
closely reflect the *actual* progress:
1. The code in the svn repo is light years more functional than the
code on the front page of the website, and releases are disruptive and
time-consuming (and thus infrequent), so maybe someone can add a note
to the "Downloads" section of the home page, something like:
Geronimo development is moving quickly, so we recommend that you get
a copy of the source code and build it, rather than use any binary release
that's more than a month old. By building from source you'll get
the latest functionality and you'll also be one step closer to being
able to contribute to Geronimo. Instructions for building Geronimo
can be found on the Geronimo wiki at
http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/Building.
2. From mailing list traffic I've seen it looks as if the source
releases are broken (at least the tarballs), and they're definitely
obsolete and unmaintained, so why not just get rid of them entirely?
People who are interested in the code would be *much* better served by
getting it from source control.
3. A couple of people mentioned that a lot of work is going on behind
the scenes that can't be publicised because of agreements with Sun,
etc etc. So why not add a note to the News page indicating that?
Something like:
The Geronimo Development Team is now working on J2EE certification.
Because of our agreements with Sun we're not allowed say anything
specific about our status, but we're working hard and making
progress!
4. There *is* a lot more news about Geronimo than is on the news page.
Didn't EJBQL just land the other day? That's significant! Maybe
moving news to the wiki would make it easier for folks to add items
that they think are important. Hell, if nobody's got the time to add
items to the news page maybe the link on the home page should point to
http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/RecentChanges . That page isn't all
that easy to read but at least it's got lots of recent changes to it.
I believe that a small amount of time spent bringing appearances in
line with reality would be well spent in terms of saving time by not
having discussions like this one. It might even attract more people
to Geronimo, at least it won't turn them away. If folks agree with
the gist of these ideas I can submit a patch to the web site.
Regards,
Toby
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Chris Dodunski wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I'm pleased to hear that you are in 'go-go-go' mode. As someone who has
> used and supported Apache open source software for years, I was rapt
> back in 2003 to hear of the Geronimo project. So I subscribed to the
> Geronimo mailing list, to keep up-to-date with progress.
>
> Admittedly, I was beginning to have my doubts, based on your rarely
> changing front page, and the quiet nature of the mailing list.
>
> May I be so bold as to enquire whether you expect to have a first
> production release available anytime soon? I mean, is present activity
> mostly to do with attaining certification, rather than primary
> development work?
>
Attaining certification is a legal prerequisite for a production
release. We also can't say how much progress has been made.
As you can tell from the dev list, most of the development effort right
now is focusing on web-service and IIOP integration rather than servlets
or EJBs.
I'd invite you to try it out, and tell us what you do and don't like.
--
Jeremy
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:08:28 +1300, Chris Dodunski
<Ch...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> I'm pleased to hear that you are in 'go-go-go' mode. As someone who has
> used and supported Apache open source software for years, I was rapt
> back in 2003 to hear of the Geronimo project. So I subscribed to the
> Geronimo mailing list, to keep up-to-date with progress.
>
> Admittedly, I was beginning to have my doubts, based on your rarely
> changing front page, and the quiet nature of the mailing list.
>
> May I be so bold as to enquire whether you expect to have a first
> production release available anytime soon? I mean, is present activity
> mostly to do with attaining certification, rather than primary
> development work?
First, I'm going to reuse Jeremy's response to a similar question
earlier in this thread because it drives right to the heart of the
matter:
> One challenge is that we are in heavy lets-get-this-thing-certified mode and unfortunately we are > not allowed to describe where we are in that curve. Needless to say, progress is being made.
This explains the lack of changes to http://geronimo.apache.org/ and
the lack of discussion on the dev@ mailing list at the moment.
My real response to anyone who sees a need that's not being filled is
to CONTRIBUTE! There is tons of work to be done and not just writing
code. Anyone can contribute by creating how-tos on the wiki, by
writing tests for code and obviously the web site could stand to be
updated. But that's only the start of it. I'm sure that other
committers can attest to many other forms of contribution that we
need.
What I'm really saying is turn your criticisms into constructive ones
and help out. Geronimo is truly community based and what we need are
more community memebers. Without an active and thriving community,
Geronimo will not succeed. Please join us in making this a success.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by Chris Dodunski <Ch...@clear.net.nz>.
Hi David,
I'm pleased to hear that you are in 'go-go-go' mode. As someone who has
used and supported Apache open source software for years, I was rapt
back in 2003 to hear of the Geronimo project. So I subscribed to the
Geronimo mailing list, to keep up-to-date with progress.
Admittedly, I was beginning to have my doubts, based on your rarely
changing front page, and the quiet nature of the mailing list.
May I be so bold as to enquire whether you expect to have a first
production release available anytime soon? I mean, is present activity
mostly to do with attaining certification, rather than primary
development work?
Regards,
Chris.
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 20:37, David Blevins wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:18:57AM +0100, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
> > David Blevins schrieb:
> >
> > >Don't think I follow. The M in 1.0-M3 stands for Milestone, inspired by
> > >the way the Eclipse project labels their milestone releases.
> > >
> >
> > Seems I've not expressed my point correctly: I just wanted to say, that
> > it sometimes seems to users, that progress of development has stopped,
> > just because there is no (milestone) release - just to encourage the
> > geronimo team to think about an M4 release. However, from Jeremy's reply
> > it seems there is currently no chance for a new release.
> >
>
> Got it. I feel you pain. I'd love to push out another release, but the last one took Aaron, Dain and I the better part of a week (and we still messed up the source tar). Right now, we're in go-go-go mode and breaking that momentum for a release wouldn't be a good thing.
>
> Bear with us :)
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:18:57AM +0100, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
> David Blevins schrieb:
>
> >Don't think I follow. The M in 1.0-M3 stands for Milestone, inspired by
> >the way the Eclipse project labels their milestone releases.
> >
>
> Seems I've not expressed my point correctly: I just wanted to say, that
> it sometimes seems to users, that progress of development has stopped,
> just because there is no (milestone) release - just to encourage the
> geronimo team to think about an M4 release. However, from Jeremy's reply
> it seems there is currently no chance for a new release.
>
Got it. I feel you pain. I'd love to push out another release, but the last one took Aaron, Dain and I the better part of a week (and we still messed up the source tar). Right now, we're in go-go-go mode and breaking that momentum for a release wouldn't be a good thing.
Bear with us :)
Thanks,
David
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by Peter Nabbefeld <Pe...@gmx.de>.
David Blevins schrieb:
>
> On Feb 7, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> what about putting the release date into the release notes? BTW,
>> progress is often measured in reaching some milestones, as many users
>> don't want to build the complete software on their own, just to run it.
>>
>
> Don't think I follow. The M in 1.0-M3 stands for Milestone, inspired by
> the way the Eclipse project labels their milestone releases.
>
Seems I've not expressed my point correctly: I just wanted to say, that
it sometimes seems to users, that progress of development has stopped,
just because there is no (milestone) release - just to encourage the
geronimo team to think about an M4 release. However, from Jeremy's reply
it seems there is currently no chance for a new release.
Regards,
Peter
> -David
>
>
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by David Blevins <db...@gluecode.com>.
On Feb 7, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> what about putting the release date into the release notes? BTW,
> progress is often measured in reaching some milestones, as many users
> don't want to build the complete software on their own, just to run
> it.
>
Don't think I follow. The M in 1.0-M3 stands for Milestone, inspired
by the way the Eclipse project labels their milestone releases.
-David
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by Peter Nabbefeld <Pe...@gmx.de>.
Hi David,
what about putting the release date into the release notes? BTW,
progress is often measured in reaching some milestones, as many users
don't want to build the complete software on their own, just to run it.
Kind regards
Peter Nabbefeld
David Blevins schrieb:
>
> On Feb 7, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Preston L. Bannister wrote:
>
>> Yes, I checked and noticed the commit messages (on the mailing list).
>> Hard to pin a specific significance - detail but no insight.
>>
>
> How about our release notes? You have any suggestions on how we can
> improve those?
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/dist/geronimo/v1.0-M3/RELEASE-NOTES-1.0-M3.txt
> http://cvs.apache.org/dist/geronimo/v1.0-M2/RELEASE-NOTES-1.0-M2.txt
> http://geronimo.apache.org/RELEASE-NOTES-1.0-M1.txt
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by David Blevins <db...@gluecode.com>.
On Feb 7, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Preston L. Bannister wrote:
> Yes, I checked and noticed the commit messages (on the mailing list).
> Hard to pin a specific significance - detail but no insight.
>
How about our release notes? You have any suggestions on how we can
improve those?
http://cvs.apache.org/dist/geronimo/v1.0-M3/RELEASE-NOTES-1.0-M3.txt
http://cvs.apache.org/dist/geronimo/v1.0-M2/RELEASE-NOTES-1.0-M2.txt
http://geronimo.apache.org/RELEASE-NOTES-1.0-M1.txt
Thanks,
David
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by "Preston L. Bannister" <pr...@bannister.us>.
Yes, I checked and noticed the commit messages (on the mailing list).
Hard to pin a specific significance - detail but no insight.
The sort-of-free Sun J2EE distribution offered on the Sun site where we
get the JSDK is going to skim off a certain percentage of folks who
might otherwise look at Geronimo. At the other end (in some sense)
JBoss going to skim off another percentage. Interest in lightweight
containers might take another slice. How much does that leave?
Lack of sufficient interest is a killer for projects of this sort. So
I'm curious :-).
David Blevins wrote:
>I don't think anyone needs to forgive you for not reading the changelog on any of our releases or noticing the flood of commit messages from our svn repository.
>
>If you want to do a better job at trolling, you might want to avoid trying to portray the "Sun J2EE distribution" as something that is a major force in the market. What iPlanet do you live on :)
>
>-David
>
>
>On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 08:32:13PM -0800, Preston L. Bannister wrote:
>
>
>>On 11/10/2004 Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The 1.0-M3 release is cut
>>>
>>>
>>The "News" on the Core Developers <http://www.coredevelopers.net/news/>
>>website is from 2003. The rate of progress on Geronimo is hard to
>>determine, but seems somewhere between slow and dead. Forgive me for
>>being skeptical, but it is starting to look like this project is on the
>>wrong side of the power curve.
>>
>>Not that I'd mind if proven wrong ... :).
>>
>>Is this project really going somewhere, or have the early participants
>>found they cannot afford the needed time?
>>
>>Between JBoss on one end, Sun's J2RE distribution, and interest in
>>lighter-weight containers, is this project still relevant?
>>
>>
--
Preston L. Bannister
preston@bannister.us <ma...@bannister.us>
http://bannister.us/preston.bannister/
pbannister on Yahoo Messenger
Phone: 949.588.0872
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
I don't think anyone needs to forgive you for not reading the changelog on any of our releases or noticing the flood of commit messages from our svn repository.
If you want to do a better job at trolling, you might want to avoid trying to portray the "Sun J2EE distribution" as something that is a major force in the market. What iPlanet do you live on :)
-David
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 08:32:13PM -0800, Preston L. Bannister wrote:
> On 11/10/2004 Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> >The 1.0-M3 release is cut
>
>
> The "News" on the Core Developers <http://www.coredevelopers.net/news/>
> website is from 2003. The rate of progress on Geronimo is hard to
> determine, but seems somewhere between slow and dead. Forgive me for
> being skeptical, but it is starting to look like this project is on the
> wrong side of the power curve.
>
> Not that I'd mind if proven wrong ... :).
>
> Is this project really going somewhere, or have the early participants
> found they cannot afford the needed time?
>
> Between JBoss on one end, Sun's J2RE distribution, and interest in
> lighter-weight containers, is this project still relevant?
>
> --
> Preston L. Bannister
> preston@bannister.us <ma...@bannister.us>
> http://bannister.us/preston.bannister/
> pbannister on Yahoo Messenger
> Phone: 949.588.0872
LocalWords: Bannister Dain Sundstrom website Geronimo JBoss pbannister Yahoo
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Preston L. Bannister wrote:
> On 11/10/2004 Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> The 1.0-M3 release is cut
>
>
>
> The "News" on the Core Developers <http://www.coredevelopers.net/news/>
> website is from 2003. The rate of progress on Geronimo is hard to
> determine, but seems somewhere between slow and dead. Forgive me for
> being skeptical, but it is starting to look like this project is on the
> wrong side of the power curve.
>
> Not that I'd mind if proven wrong ... :).
>
One challenge is that we are in heavy lets-get-this-thing-certified mode
and unfortunately we are not allowed to describe where we are in that
curve. Needless to say, progress is being made.
> Is this project really going somewhere, or have the early participants
> found they cannot afford the needed time?
>
We think it is. Nearly all of the early participants remain actively
involved and, more importantly, more people are participating all the time.
> Between JBoss on one end, Sun's J2EE distribution, and interest in
> lighter-weight containers, is this project still relevant?
>
Don't forget Bluestone: free as in beer does not help. Both JBoss and
Sun are commercial J2EE distributions (as in they are released subject
to a commercial J2EE license) and although both have source available
under certain terms, neither has an open community like Apache. At the
moment, the only certified J2EE implementation under an open source J2EE
license is ObjectWeb's JOnAS, and due credit to them for getting it done.
As far as light-weight container support goes, Geronimo has the
advantage that it was designed from the beginning to support those
frameworks. The core architecture is based on IoC patterns adapted to
support the needs of server applications. The Geronimo kernel has
already been adopted by other open-source servers, and we have been
working closely with application level frameworks such as Spring for
quite a while.
In the end, are we relevant? Only time will tell.
--
Jeremy
Re: ANN: Geronimo 1.0-M3 Release
Posted by "Preston L. Bannister" <pr...@bannister.us>.
On 11/10/2004 Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> The 1.0-M3 release is cut
The "News" on the Core Developers <http://www.coredevelopers.net/news/>
website is from 2003. The rate of progress on Geronimo is hard to
determine, but seems somewhere between slow and dead. Forgive me for
being skeptical, but it is starting to look like this project is on the
wrong side of the power curve.
Not that I'd mind if proven wrong ... :).
Is this project really going somewhere, or have the early participants
found they cannot afford the needed time?
Between JBoss on one end, Sun's J2EE distribution, and interest in
lighter-weight containers, is this project still relevant?
--
Preston L. Bannister
preston@bannister.us <ma...@bannister.us>
http://bannister.us/preston.bannister/
pbannister on Yahoo Messenger
Phone: 949.588.0872