You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Blevins <da...@visi.com> on 2005/06/01 01:21:21 UTC
Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:50:43AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Can we agree that we need to somehow construct the stable, unstable
> and sandbox codebases?
I don't think we have agreed on what is stable and what is unstable. We were having a discussion on the fact that it is now impossible to offer a stable upgrade/patch path for applications. That thread was killed with "PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER CERTIFICATION."
Now Jeremy has proposed that we ignore that discussion and begin cementing what we currently have as stable. How is that at all fair?
-David
Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On May 31, 2005, at 7:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:50:43AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> Can we agree that we need to somehow construct the stable, unstable
>> and sandbox codebases?
>>
>
> I don't think we have agreed on what is stable and what is unstable.
Fair enough - but can we agree that we need the *distinction* and
then decide what goes *in*?
> We were having a discussion on the fact that it is now impossible
> to offer a stable upgrade/patch path for applications. That thread
> was killed with "PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER
> CERTIFICATION."
>
> Now Jeremy has proposed that we ignore that discussion and begin
> cementing what we currently have as stable. How is that at all fair?
I think that what Jeremy has proposed actually fixes that, doesn't it?
We can have a stable area that we focus on going for cert and then
version 1.0, and a unstable area where innovation and change (like
the serialization experimentation) can happen - then things that work
can be brought to stable, w/o affecting the work for cert and 1.0
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On May 31, 2005, at 5:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2005, at 8:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> (reordered)
>>
>>> Just going to throw out that I think the only goal we can all agree
>>> on is to not regress on certification once we achieve it.
>>>
>>
>> I certainly hope we agree on this :-) but hope we can find more to
>> agree on.
>>
>> On May 31, 2005, at 4:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:21:21PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:50:43AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Can we agree that we need to somehow construct the stable, unstable
>>>>> and sandbox codebases?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we have agreed on what is stable and what is
>>>> unstable. We were having a discussion on the fact that it is now
>>>> impossible to offer a stable upgrade/patch path for applications.
>>>> That thread was killed with "PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL
>>>> AFTER CERTIFICATION."
>>>>
>>>> Now Jeremy has proposed that we ignore that discussion and begin
>>>> cementing what we currently have as stable. How is that at all
>>>> fair?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> I don't know about fair, but I am finding this discussion nearly as
>> distracting as the previous one that we put on hold. I still don't
>> see what exotic svn tricks might buy us over normal svn usage, and
>> don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about it until we pass all
>> the tests. I still think everyones perspective may change once we
>> are passing all the tests and have fixed the few egregious
>> architectural problems that crept in.
>>
>> I would like to put this discussion on hold until we pass all the
>> tests
>
> if that happens, w/o a stable area, we have to put all changes except
> certification related changes on hold until we pass.
>
> right?
Not really, I think anything we agree should be in our actual first
certified release can be added. For instance I'd like to see Jeremy's
configuration and assembly plugins get to a working state and be used
for the build. There are a couple of other changes I have in mind that
dont affect tests passing but improve the structure or usability.
There's at least one patch (servlet start order) I want to apply soon.
thanks
david jencks
>
> geir
>
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On May 31, 2005, at 8:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> (reordered)
>
>> Just going to throw out that I think the only goal we can all
>> agree on is to not regress on certification once we achieve it.
>>
>
> I certainly hope we agree on this :-) but hope we can find more to
> agree on.
>
> On May 31, 2005, at 4:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:21:21PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:50:43AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can we agree that we need to somehow construct the stable, unstable
>>>> and sandbox codebases?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think we have agreed on what is stable and what is
>>> unstable. We were having a discussion on the fact that it is now
>>> impossible to offer a stable upgrade/patch path for
>>> applications. That thread was killed with "PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT
>>> ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER CERTIFICATION."
>>>
>>> Now Jeremy has proposed that we ignore that discussion and begin
>>> cementing what we currently have as stable. How is that at all
>>> fair?
>>>
>>>
>
> I don't know about fair, but I am finding this discussion nearly as
> distracting as the previous one that we put on hold. I still don't
> see what exotic svn tricks might buy us over normal svn usage, and
> don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about it until we pass
> all the tests. I still think everyones perspective may change once
> we are passing all the tests and have fixed the few egregious
> architectural problems that crept in.
>
> I would like to put this discussion on hold until we pass all the
> tests
if that happens, w/o a stable area, we have to put all changes except
certification related changes on hold until we pass.
right?
geir
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 5/31/05, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I don't think we have agreed on what is stable and what is unstable.
> >> We were having a discussion on the fact that it is now impossible to
> >> offer a stable upgrade/patch path for applications. That thread was
> >> killed with "PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER CERTIFICATION."
> >>
> >> Now Jeremy has proposed that we ignore that discussion and begin
> >> cementing what we currently have as stable. How is that at all fair?
> >>
>
> I don't know about fair, but I am finding this discussion nearly as
> distracting as the previous one that we put on hold. I still don't see
> what exotic svn tricks might buy us over normal svn usage, and don't
> want to spend a lot of time thinking about it until we pass all the
> tests. I still think everyones perspective may change once we are
> passing all the tests and have fixed the few egregious architectural
> problems that crept in.
If you're referring to the circular dependency between Geronimo and
OpenEJB, I agree. This needs to be fixed ASAP.
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: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Posted by "Brian K. Wallace" <br...@transmorphix.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Jencks wrote:
|
| I don't know about fair, but I am finding this discussion nearly as
| distracting as the previous one that we put on hold. I still don't see
| what exotic svn tricks might buy us over normal svn usage, and don't
| want to spend a lot of time thinking about it until we pass all the
| tests. I still think everyones perspective may change once we are
| passing all the tests and have fixed the few egregious architectural
| problems that crept in.
|
| I would like to put this discussion on hold until we pass all the tests
|
| thanks
| david jencks
Agreed. I'm still in favor of 'modification of structure' in the
interests of ease of localized maintenance and possible
deployment/deliverable options not currently available, but I'd much
rather put that on a "TODO" list for after certification than take more
time now to discuss it. Very difficult to advocate "certification first"
and "restructure thoughts now" when those involved in the certification
process would undoubtedly need to be in on the restructure thoughts process.
First things first.
My .02
Brian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCnP38aCoPKRow/gARAuJCAKC6Abi1oUVMJA7Gq9wRAJyUsQo1DgCgprU0
nUtdvbP7y8vvNN4vvQvwVZk=
=7+VS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
(reordered)
> Just going to throw out that I think the only goal we can all agree on
> is to not regress on certification once we achieve it.
I certainly hope we agree on this :-) but hope we can find more to
agree on.
On May 31, 2005, at 4:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:21:21PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:50:43AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> Can we agree that we need to somehow construct the stable, unstable
>>> and sandbox codebases?
>>
>> I don't think we have agreed on what is stable and what is unstable.
>> We were having a discussion on the fact that it is now impossible to
>> offer a stable upgrade/patch path for applications. That thread was
>> killed with "PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER CERTIFICATION."
>>
>> Now Jeremy has proposed that we ignore that discussion and begin
>> cementing what we currently have as stable. How is that at all fair?
>>
I don't know about fair, but I am finding this discussion nearly as
distracting as the previous one that we put on hold. I still don't see
what exotic svn tricks might buy us over normal svn usage, and don't
want to spend a lot of time thinking about it until we pass all the
tests. I still think everyones perspective may change once we are
passing all the tests and have fixed the few egregious architectural
problems that crept in.
I would like to put this discussion on hold until we pass all the tests
thanks
david jencks
>
>
>
> -David
>
Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On May 31, 2005, at 7:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:21:21PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:50:43AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Can we agree that we need to somehow construct the stable, unstable
>>> and sandbox codebases?
>>>
>>
>> I don't think we have agreed on what is stable and what is
>> unstable. We were having a discussion on the fact that it is now
>> impossible to offer a stable upgrade/patch path for applications.
>> That thread was killed with "PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL
>> AFTER CERTIFICATION."
>>
>> Now Jeremy has proposed that we ignore that discussion and begin
>> cementing what we currently have as stable. How is that at all fair?
>>
>>
>
>
> Just going to throw out that I think the only goal we can all agree
> on is to not regress on certification once we achieve it.
I think that's a requirement, certainly in the "stable" tree :)
geir
>
> -David
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Posted by "Brian K. Wallace" <br...@transmorphix.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Blevins wrote:
|
| Just going to throw out that I think the only goal we can all agree on
is to not regress on certification once we achieve it.
|
| -David
|
Combined with not slowing down progress on attaining that certification. :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCnPbfaCoPKRow/gARAotlAKCpKqZNTRBvUz4yJENzXSYgZM6pAACeOXNn
/Qaa/eRFdNLRRT0ozT02pDc=
=Qex9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:21:21PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:50:43AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > Can we agree that we need to somehow construct the stable, unstable
> > and sandbox codebases?
>
> I don't think we have agreed on what is stable and what is unstable. We were having a discussion on the fact that it is now impossible to offer a stable upgrade/patch path for applications. That thread was killed with "PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER CERTIFICATION."
>
> Now Jeremy has proposed that we ignore that discussion and begin cementing what we currently have as stable. How is that at all fair?
>
Just going to throw out that I think the only goal we can all agree on is to not regress on certification once we achieve it.
-David