You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> on 2005/08/24 23:31:07 UTC
M5 Time ;-)
Hello community,
I have decided (with goading from certain team members) to step up and
be the goat herder on getting out M5. This is likely due to this
release being the Tomcat coming out party ;-) I will be aided by Bruce
Snyder and David Blevins, both my copilots, but it looks like I will be
the captain on this one...yikes! So bear with me in any faux pas I may
bring along the way.
This will be the kick off email...so lets start with a few basic questions.
1) When do we want to release M5? I mean this from a concrete date
perspective. I would like to see an official 9/9/2005 date.
2) What do we want as part of the M5 release. I ask that we break this
down into A) Must haves, B) Nice to haves, C) Fuhgetaboutit.
3) I would like to see the M5 cut with a 5 day window between QA code
freeze and release. Thus QA cut on 9/4. Does this sound reasonable?
Any other issues, lets make em a part of this thread.
Thanks,
Jeff
--
Jeff Genender
http://geronimo.apache.org
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Thats ok...we need to get you some help on that...nice job BTW. FYI,
> that date is not the QA cut date, the date I proposed is to end the M5
> list and then pick a cut date.
Right, I understand, but until we've reviewed all the issues, I
don't feel good about freezing the fix list and calculating an ETA.
> Aaron..you are kicking butt on hitting those JIRA issues...my inbox is
> slammed (thanks!). I already fixed mine thanks to your JIRA spam ;-)
>
> But we need a drop dead date (8/30?), otherwise this could go on for a
> long time.
Well, you know, anyone who +1's the date is committing to help
ensure all the JIRA issues have a target release by that date. :)
Aaron
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Thats ok...we need to get you some help on that...nice job BTW. FYI,
that date is not the QA cut date, the date I proposed is to end the M5
list and then pick a cut date.
Aaron..you are kicking butt on hitting those JIRA issues...my inbox is
slammed (thanks!). I already fixed mine thanks to your JIRA spam ;-)
But we need a drop dead date (8/30?), otherwise this could go on for a
long time.
Jeff
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> It's fine with me if all the JIRA issues have a target release as
> of that date. I'm working through them as I have the patience, but I'm
> not guaranteeing that I'm going to finish them all myself by that date.
>
> Aaron
>
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>>I propose that on Tuesday (8/30), we close the list and decide on a QA
>>cut date. Is this fine? I just want to get some milestone targets
>>dates in order.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>We use ObjectName pattern queries. If we eliminate ObjectNames, what
>>>>will we use for queries?
>>>
>>>
>>> Interfaces and GBean Name components. I imagine, for example, the
>>>GBeanQuery would take a String (interface name) and/or a Map (key=value
>>>pairs to query on). I guess the domain too.
>>>
>>> Jeremy mentioned wanting to support a "query language", which
>>>among other things would let you specify ands and ors and so on, but I
>>>don't think that needs to be in the first release.
>>>
>>>Aaron
>>
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
It's fine with me if all the JIRA issues have a target release as
of that date. I'm working through them as I have the patience, but I'm
not guaranteeing that I'm going to finish them all myself by that date.
Aaron
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Jeff Genender wrote:
> I propose that on Tuesday (8/30), we close the list and decide on a QA
> cut date. Is this fine? I just want to get some milestone targets
> dates in order.
>
> Jeff
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> >
> >>We use ObjectName pattern queries. If we eliminate ObjectNames, what
> >>will we use for queries?
> >
> >
> > Interfaces and GBean Name components. I imagine, for example, the
> > GBeanQuery would take a String (interface name) and/or a Map (key=value
> > pairs to query on). I guess the domain too.
> >
> > Jeremy mentioned wanting to support a "query language", which
> > among other things would let you specify ands and ors and so on, but I
> > don't think that needs to be in the first release.
> >
> > Aaron
>
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
I propose that on Tuesday (8/30), we close the list and decide on a QA
cut date. Is this fine? I just want to get some milestone targets
dates in order.
Jeff
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>>We use ObjectName pattern queries. If we eliminate ObjectNames, what
>>will we use for queries?
>
>
> Interfaces and GBean Name components. I imagine, for example, the
> GBeanQuery would take a String (interface name) and/or a Map (key=value
> pairs to query on). I guess the domain too.
>
> Jeremy mentioned wanting to support a "query language", which
> among other things would let you specify ands and ors and so on, but I
> don't think that needs to be in the first release.
>
> Aaron
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> We use ObjectName pattern queries. If we eliminate ObjectNames, what
> will we use for queries?
Interfaces and GBean Name components. I imagine, for example, the
GBeanQuery would take a String (interface name) and/or a Map (key=value
pairs to query on). I guess the domain too.
Jeremy mentioned wanting to support a "query language", which
among other things would let you specify ands and ors and so on, but I
don't think that needs to be in the first release.
Aaron
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Aug 27, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> I think we need to decide to do a full conversion or just leave it
>> for 1.0. If we are doing a full conversion, we need to come to
>> agreement on GBeanName and the query system.
>>
>
> What's the issue around the query system?
We use ObjectName pattern queries. If we eliminate ObjectNames, what
will we use for queries?
-dain
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I think we need to decide to do a full conversion or just leave it
> for 1.0. If we are doing a full conversion, we need to come to
> agreement on GBeanName and the query system.
What's the issue around the query system?
Aaron
> On Aug 27, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I agree that there's a lot involved here. I'd be OK with
> > providing the new and improved GBeanName implementation for M5 and
> > planning to do the total ObjectName->GBeanName conversion
> > afterward. I'd
> > also be OK with planning to do it all in M5 if everyone else is on
> > board
> > with that. I don't really like the remove/revert for M5 solution
> > -- just
> > because the feature is not complete and perfect does not mean we
> > shouldn't
> > make incremental progress (and believe me, I feel like I've been on
> > the
> > pointy end of that one before).
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> >
> >>> How about a must have to implement GBeanName according to the
> >>> previous notes on the mailing list?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Does this include modifying all code to use GBeanName instead of
> >> object name? If not, I think we should simply remove GBeanName
> >> instead because it makes the kernel confusing. The Kernel interface
> >> has methods that take object names, and if a subset of ObjectNames
> >> are invalid for the kernel this interface is misleading. Also the
> >> only use of GBeanName in the kernel is within the registry code.
> >> This means that the rest of the framework assumes ObjectNames, and
> >> this change will make that code confusing. Finally, we have not
> >> addressed ObjectName queries, which are a required component of the
> >> framework and are used through the code base. This should be an all
> >> or nothing change.
> >>
> >> -dain
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
I think we need to decide to do a full conversion or just leave it
for 1.0. If we are doing a full conversion, we need to come to
agreement on GBeanName and the query system.
-dain
On Aug 27, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I agree that there's a lot involved here. I'd be OK with
> providing the new and improved GBeanName implementation for M5 and
> planning to do the total ObjectName->GBeanName conversion
> afterward. I'd
> also be OK with planning to do it all in M5 if everyone else is on
> board
> with that. I don't really like the remove/revert for M5 solution
> -- just
> because the feature is not complete and perfect does not mean we
> shouldn't
> make incremental progress (and believe me, I feel like I've been on
> the
> pointy end of that one before).
>
> Aaron
>
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>>> How about a must have to implement GBeanName according to the
>>> previous notes on the mailing list?
>>>
>>
>> Does this include modifying all code to use GBeanName instead of
>> object name? If not, I think we should simply remove GBeanName
>> instead because it makes the kernel confusing. The Kernel interface
>> has methods that take object names, and if a subset of ObjectNames
>> are invalid for the kernel this interface is misleading. Also the
>> only use of GBeanName in the kernel is within the registry code.
>> This means that the rest of the framework assumes ObjectNames, and
>> this change will make that code confusing. Finally, we have not
>> addressed ObjectName queries, which are a required component of the
>> framework and are used through the code base. This should be an all
>> or nothing change.
>>
>> -dain
>>
>
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I agree that there's a lot involved here. I'd be OK with
providing the new and improved GBeanName implementation for M5 and
planning to do the total ObjectName->GBeanName conversion afterward. I'd
also be OK with planning to do it all in M5 if everyone else is on board
with that. I don't really like the remove/revert for M5 solution -- just
because the feature is not complete and perfect does not mean we shouldn't
make incremental progress (and believe me, I feel like I've been on the
pointy end of that one before).
Aaron
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> > How about a must have to implement GBeanName according to the
> > previous notes on the mailing list?
>
> Does this include modifying all code to use GBeanName instead of
> object name? If not, I think we should simply remove GBeanName
> instead because it makes the kernel confusing. The Kernel interface
> has methods that take object names, and if a subset of ObjectNames
> are invalid for the kernel this interface is misleading. Also the
> only use of GBeanName in the kernel is within the registry code.
> This means that the rest of the framework assumes ObjectNames, and
> this change will make that code confusing. Finally, we have not
> addressed ObjectName queries, which are a required component of the
> framework and are used through the code base. This should be an all
> or nothing change.
>
> -dain
>
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Aug 27, 2005, at 11:41 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> How about a must have to implement GBeanName according to the
> previous notes on the mailing list?
Does this include modifying all code to use GBeanName instead of
object name? If not, I think we should simply remove GBeanName
instead because it makes the kernel confusing. The Kernel interface
has methods that take object names, and if a subset of ObjectNames
are invalid for the kernel this interface is misleading. Also the
only use of GBeanName in the kernel is within the registry code.
This means that the rest of the framework assumes ObjectNames, and
this change will make that code confusing. Finally, we have not
addressed ObjectName queries, which are a required component of the
framework and are used through the code base. This should be an all
or nothing change.
-dain
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
How about a must have to implement GBeanName according to the
previous notes on the mailing list?
Aaron
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Jeff Genender wrote:
> >
> > 2) What do we want as part of the M5 release. I ask that we break this
> > down into A) Must haves, B) Nice to haves, C) Fuhgetaboutit.
> >
>
> A) Must haves
> * Simpler way to configure the server for Jetty vs. Tomcat. I think
> this includes breaking the Jetty & Tomcat components out of the huge
> o/a/g/Server plan into separate ones
>
> * Configurations with version information (e.g. 1.0-M5)
>
> * Safe way of saving config data in the presence of adverse conditions
> (e.g. when we're out of memory). Ideally we can use the config db to
> avoid needing to rewrite the .ser files in the store but if that
> doesn't work we should write them out safely (e.g. copy and rename
> rather than overwrite)
>
> * Console working equally badly on both Jetty and Tomcat
>
> May be more but those are the big things that come to mind.
> --
> Jeremy
>
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 30, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Aug 30, 2005, at 3:37 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Runtime, please? :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We covered this in M4. We agreed on separate builds of Jetty and
>> Tomcat rather than one build with Jetty as the default.
>>
>
> relax. Was just hoping...
>
:)
It's fine if we want to reconsider. I know everyone kind of
informally wants to get the the point where we can swap stuff in and
out at runtime. Don't know how close we are.
-David
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Aug 30, 2005, at 3:37 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2) What do we want as part of the M5 release. I ask that we
>>>> break this down into A) Must haves, B) Nice to haves, C)
>>>> Fuhgetaboutit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A) Must haves
>>> * Simpler way to configure the server for Jetty vs. Tomcat. I think
>>> this includes breaking the Jetty & Tomcat components out of the
>>> huge
>>> o/a/g/Server plan into separate ones
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Runtime, please? :)
>>
>>
>
> We covered this in M4. We agreed on separate builds of Jetty and
> Tomcat rather than one build with Jetty as the default.
relax. Was just hoping...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 27, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
>
>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 2) What do we want as part of the M5 release. I ask that we
>>> break this down into A) Must haves, B) Nice to haves, C)
>>> Fuhgetaboutit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A) Must haves
>> * Simpler way to configure the server for Jetty vs. Tomcat. I think
>> this includes breaking the Jetty & Tomcat components out of the
>> huge
>> o/a/g/Server plan into separate ones
>>
>
> Runtime, please? :)
>
We covered this in M4. We agreed on separate builds of Jetty and
Tomcat rather than one build with Jetty as the default.
-David
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Aug 27, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> 2) What do we want as part of the M5 release. I ask that we break
>> this down into A) Must haves, B) Nice to haves, C) Fuhgetaboutit.
>>
>
> A) Must haves
> * Simpler way to configure the server for Jetty vs. Tomcat. I think
> this includes breaking the Jetty & Tomcat components out of the huge
> o/a/g/Server plan into separate ones
Runtime, please? :)
>
> * Configurations with version information (e.g. 1.0-M5)
>
+1
> * Safe way of saving config data in the presence of adverse conditions
> (e.g. when we're out of memory). Ideally we can use the config db to
> avoid needing to rewrite the .ser files in the store but if that
> doesn't work we should write them out safely (e.g. copy and rename
> rather than overwrite)
When you are out of memory, can you trust any operation at that
point? Shouldn't you just go down?
>
> * Console working equally badly on both Jetty and Tomcat
>
> May be more but those are the big things that come to mind.
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
> A) Must haves
<snip/>
>
> May be more but those are the big things that come to mind.
Knew there was more :-)
* Have the installer modify the config using the config db rather than
by setting ports into the plans and redeploying
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> 2) What do we want as part of the M5 release. I ask that we break this
> down into A) Must haves, B) Nice to haves, C) Fuhgetaboutit.
>
A) Must haves
* Simpler way to configure the server for Jetty vs. Tomcat. I think
this includes breaking the Jetty & Tomcat components out of the huge
o/a/g/Server plan into separate ones
* Configurations with version information (e.g. 1.0-M5)
* Safe way of saving config data in the presence of adverse conditions
(e.g. when we're out of memory). Ideally we can use the config db to
avoid needing to rewrite the .ser files in the store but if that
doesn't work we should write them out safely (e.g. copy and rename
rather than overwrite)
* Console working equally badly on both Jetty and Tomcat
May be more but those are the big things that come to mind.
--
Jeremy
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 8/26/05, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> As to what is Jetty specific in the console .... it may be not as bad as I
> think it is ....(I'm just now about to configure tomcat and see what
> happens).
FWIW, the console deploys under Tomcat thanks to Jeff. But I know that
there are a couple of small things still that need fixing (as you've
noted below).
> However, as I look in the code for the web server and connection management
> I see many instances where special processing is done for Jetty but not
> Tomcat. Perhaps none is necessary for Tomcat?
> There is a log viewer portlet that is Jetty Specific and I don't see
> another equivalent for Tomcat.
> Other posts have indicated problems with the console and tomcat ... but
> they may have already been fixed. I'll find out soon :-) .
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: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
There's a log viewer and statistics viewer that don't yet work for
Tomcat. The basic connector (host/port) configuration does work for both.
To be quite generous about it, the console was developed in a
Jetty specific manner because Tomcat was not running at the time. Let me
just say that I'm not going to be satisfied with the console code until
it's all switched to use the management API, and that should eliminate the
outright hardcoding to one implementation of any feature, but won't
necessarily fix the missing features (such as if our Jetty impl can gather
statistics but our Tomcat impl can't).
Aaron
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Joe Bohn wrote:
> I don't have the history to answer your last question ... perhaps
> somebody else can.
>
> As to what is Jetty specific in the console .... it may be not as bad as
> I think it is ....(I'm just now about to configure tomcat and see what
> happens).
> However, as I look in the code for the web server and connection
> management I see many instances where special processing is done for
> Jetty but not Tomcat. Perhaps none is necessary for Tomcat?
> There is a log viewer portlet that is Jetty Specific and I don't see
> another equivalent for Tomcat.
> Other posts have indicated problems with the console and tomcat ... but
> they may have already been fixed. I'll find out soon :-) .
>
> Joe
>
>
> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> >On 8/26/05, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Of course this is required in Geronimo R1 .... and I think it is also
> >>required in M5.
> >>
> >> However, based upon some of the comments around certification of Tomcat, I
> >>thought I should ask if everyone felt that this was necessary for M5.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Thanks for the clarification, Joe. Now I understand that your comments
> >are aimed at M5 only. That being said, what exactly is missing? And
> >why was the choice made to develop the console in such a Jetty
> >specific manner?
> >
> >Bruce
> >
> >
>
> --
> Joe Bohn
> joe.bohn@earthlink.net
>
> "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose." -- Jim Elliot
>
>
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
I don't have the history to answer your last question ... perhaps
somebody else can.
As to what is Jetty specific in the console .... it may be not as bad as
I think it is ....(I'm just now about to configure tomcat and see what
happens).
However, as I look in the code for the web server and connection
management I see many instances where special processing is done for
Jetty but not Tomcat. Perhaps none is necessary for Tomcat?
There is a log viewer portlet that is Jetty Specific and I don't see
another equivalent for Tomcat.
Other posts have indicated problems with the console and tomcat ... but
they may have already been fixed. I'll find out soon :-) .
Joe
Bruce Snyder wrote:
>On 8/26/05, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Of course this is required in Geronimo R1 .... and I think it is also
>>required in M5.
>>
>> However, based upon some of the comments around certification of Tomcat, I
>>thought I should ask if everyone felt that this was necessary for M5.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks for the clarification, Joe. Now I understand that your comments
>are aimed at M5 only. That being said, what exactly is missing? And
>why was the choice made to develop the console in such a Jetty
>specific manner?
>
>Bruce
>
>
--
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn@earthlink.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose." -- Jim Elliot
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 8/26/05, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Of course this is required in Geronimo R1 .... and I think it is also
> required in M5.
>
> However, based upon some of the comments around certification of Tomcat, I
> thought I should ask if everyone felt that this was necessary for M5.
Thanks for the clarification, Joe. Now I understand that your comments
are aimed at M5 only. That being said, what exactly is missing? And
why was the choice made to develop the console in such a Jetty
specific manner?
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: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Of course this is required in Geronimo R1 .... and I think it is also
required in M5.
However, based upon some of the comments around certification of Tomcat,
I thought I should ask if everyone felt that this was necessary for M5.
Bruce Snyder wrote:
>On 8/26/05, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> - Console support for Tomcat equivalent to that provided for Jetty. (is
>>this really required?)
>>
>>
>
>Do you seriously think that providing a console application the only
>works with one of the two integrated web containers is a good idea? I
>hope I'm misunderstanding what's being said here. Please clarify and/
>elaborate if my understand is incorrect.
>
>Bruce
>
>
--
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn@earthlink.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose." -- Jim Elliot
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 8/26/05, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> - Console support for Tomcat equivalent to that provided for Jetty. (is
> this really required?)
Do you seriously think that providing a console application the only
works with one of the two integrated web containers is a good idea? I
hope I'm misunderstanding what's being said here. Please clarify and/
elaborate if my understand is incorrect.
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: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
I think are a number of things that folks are assuming will be included
implicitly WRT the console. We should make those explicit.
Here is an initial list :
- Console support for Tomcat equivalent to that provided for Jetty. (is
this really required?)
- Completion or removal of the place holders that have been created for
several items in the navigation area. There are several JIRAs created
for these but they don't cover all of the place holders.
- General clean-up and simplification of the console. <soapbox> I
think there is way more stuff there than a normal user would want or
need to see and it will just confuse them. We need to make this
information less visible for the typical user (those installing and
managing their own applications on a daily basis after the initial
configuration is complete) but still have it available for PD and
developers and system architects. I think we could cover some of this
under GERONIMO-788 </jira/browse/GERONIMO-788> and some more specific
JIRAs yet to be created. I have some other proposals that I will submit
with new JIRAs. This will naturally be a never-ending effort but I
would like to see if we can make some progress prior to M5.</soapbox>
If there is agreement on these general items then I will try to be more
specific and create the appropriate JIRAs and start
Joe
Jeff Genender wrote:
> Hello community,
>
> I have decided (with goading from certain team members) to step up and
> be the goat herder on getting out M5. This is likely due to this
> release being the Tomcat coming out party ;-) I will be aided by
> Bruce Snyder and David Blevins, both my copilots, but it looks like I
> will be the captain on this one...yikes! So bear with me in any faux
> pas I may bring along the way.
>
> This will be the kick off email...so lets start with a few basic
> questions.
>
> 1) When do we want to release M5? I mean this from a concrete date
> perspective. I would like to see an official 9/9/2005 date.
>
>
> 2) What do we want as part of the M5 release. I ask that we break
> this down into A) Must haves, B) Nice to haves, C) Fuhgetaboutit.
>
>
> 3) I would like to see the M5 cut with a 5 day window between QA code
> freeze and release. Thus QA cut on 9/4. Does this sound reasonable?
>
> Any other issues, lets make em a part of this thread.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
--
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn@earthlink.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose." -- Jim Elliot
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Aug 25, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2005, at 9:02 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 25, 2005, at 1:47 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:11 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We've shipped four non-certified Jetty distributions, let's go
>>>>> ahead with a Tomcat distribution in the same vein. If we need
>>>>> to go over some J2EE licensing requirements, let's do it on
>>>>> the TCK list.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we did that we only released one binary so there was no
>>>> ambiguity in the release. If the Jetty version of M5 is
>>>> certified and the Tomcat version isn't, it will be misleading to
>>>> users.
>>>>
>>>> -1 on any M5 binary that is not certified.
>>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC a release can not be vetoed except for a technical reason,
>>> so this is a -1 opinion and not a official veto.
>>>
>>
>> Sorta - we do have an issue that other projects don't have, which
>> is explicit or implicit statements about compatibility. IOW,
>> there's a legal issue here. But lets park this for now as we
>> don't have enough information, so we don't even know if we have a
>> problem.
>>
>> So what do you think about the issue itself? Do you want to see a
>> certified distro w/ Tomcat?
>>
>
> I have a pragmatic view on this. I would like to there to be a
> certified Tomcat M5, but if it isn't going to happen anytime soon,
> I personally would rather ship M5 and shoot for Tomcat
> certification in M6. Legally we can choose to ship uncertified non-
> GA release. No matter if a release is certified or not, the
> Geronimo project needs to be crystal clear about the certification
> status of any binary we distribute.
Indeed.
>
>
>> I personally feel that having tomcat as a certified, first-class
>> citizen is important and good for us. The only question I see is
>> what certifying w/ Tomcat does to our M5 timeline, and I don't
>> think we have enough information to decide either way at this point.
>>
>
> Tomcat is a first-class citizen and is important to us. If turns
> out that we are unable to certify it in a reasonable time that
> would be unfortunate, and we would have to decide how to deal with
> that.
>
Yep
>
>> I'm hoping Jeff (or anyone else) can run the TCK on Tomcat to see
>> where we are, and then decide from there.
>>
>
> +1
>
I'll see your +1 and raise you one...
geir
> -dain
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Aug 25, 2005, at 9:02 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2005, at 1:47 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:11 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> We've shipped four non-certified Jetty distributions, let's go
>>>> ahead with a Tomcat distribution in the same vein. If we need
>>>> to go over some J2EE licensing requirements, let's do it on the
>>>> TCK list.
>>>
>>> When we did that we only released one binary so there was no
>>> ambiguity in the release. If the Jetty version of M5 is certified
>>> and the Tomcat version isn't, it will be misleading to users.
>>>
>>> -1 on any M5 binary that is not certified.
>>
>> IIRC a release can not be vetoed except for a technical reason, so
>> this is a -1 opinion and not a official veto.
>
> Sorta - we do have an issue that other projects don't have, which
> is explicit or implicit statements about compatibility. IOW,
> there's a legal issue here. But lets park this for now as we don't
> have enough information, so we don't even know if we have a problem.
>
> So what do you think about the issue itself? Do you want to see a
> certified distro w/ Tomcat?
I have a pragmatic view on this. I would like to there to be a
certified Tomcat M5, but if it isn't going to happen anytime soon, I
personally would rather ship M5 and shoot for Tomcat certification in
M6. Legally we can choose to ship uncertified non-GA release. No
matter if a release is certified or not, the Geronimo project needs
to be crystal clear about the certification status of any binary we
distribute.
> I personally feel that having tomcat as a certified, first-class
> citizen is important and good for us. The only question I see is
> what certifying w/ Tomcat does to our M5 timeline, and I don't
> think we have enough information to decide either way at this point.
Tomcat is a first-class citizen and is important to us. If turns out
that we are unable to certify it in a reasonable time that would be
unfortunate, and we would have to decide how to deal with that.
> I'm hoping Jeff (or anyone else) can run the TCK on Tomcat to see
> where we are, and then decide from there.
+1
-dain
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Aug 25, 2005, at 1:47 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:11 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We've shipped four non-certified Jetty distributions, let's go
>>> ahead with a Tomcat distribution in the same vein. If we need
>>> to go over some J2EE licensing requirements, let's do it on the
>>> TCK list.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When we did that we only released one binary so there was no
>> ambiguity in the release. If the Jetty version of M5 is certified
>> and the Tomcat version isn't, it will be misleading to users.
>>
>> -1 on any M5 binary that is not certified.
>>
>
> IIRC a release can not be vetoed except for a technical reason, so
> this is a -1 opinion and not a official veto.
Sorta - we do have an issue that other projects don't have, which is
explicit or implicit statements about compatibility. IOW, there's a
legal issue here. But lets park this for now as we don't have enough
information, so we don't even know if we have a problem.
So what do you think about the issue itself? Do you want to see a
certified distro w/ Tomcat?
I personally feel that having tomcat as a certified, first-class
citizen is important and good for us. The only question I see is
what certifying w/ Tomcat does to our M5 timeline, and I don't think
we have enough information to decide either way at this point.
I'm hoping Jeff (or anyone else) can run the TCK on Tomcat to see
where we are, and then decide from there.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 24, 2005, at 11:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 10:47 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:11 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>>
>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> We've shipped four non-certified Jetty distributions, let's go
>>>> ahead with a Tomcat distribution in the same vein. If we need
>>>> to go over some J2EE licensing requirements, let's do it on the
>>>> TCK list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we did that we only released one binary so there was no
>>> ambiguity in the release. If the Jetty version of M5 is certified
>>> and the Tomcat version isn't, it will be misleading to users.
>>>
>>> -1 on any M5 binary that is not certified.
>>>
>>
>> IIRC a release can not be vetoed except for a technical reason, so
>> this is a -1 opinion and not a official veto.
>>
>
>
> I am not in favor of releasing an uncertified tomcat version with a
> certified jetty version. I would rather wait with the tomcat
> version until we solve whatever tomcat problems show up. With
> luck, this discussion will be moot due to the tomcat tests passing
> without much problem.
>
Maybe we can hold off on tackling this issue till we can get some
concrete numbers from the TCK on Tomcat.
-David
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Aug 24, 2005, at 10:47 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:11 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> We've shipped four non-certified Jetty distributions, let's go ahead
>>> with a Tomcat distribution in the same vein. If we need to go over
>>> some J2EE licensing requirements, let's do it on the TCK list.
>>>
>>
>> When we did that we only released one binary so there was no
>> ambiguity in the release. If the Jetty version of M5 is certified and
>> the Tomcat version isn't, it will be misleading to users.
>>
>> -1 on any M5 binary that is not certified.
>
> IIRC a release can not be vetoed except for a technical reason, so
> this is a -1 opinion and not a official veto.
I am not in favor of releasing an uncertified tomcat version with a
certified jetty version. I would rather wait with the tomcat version
until we solve whatever tomcat problems show up. With luck, this
discussion will be moot due to the tomcat tests passing without much
problem.
thanks
david jencks
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:11 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> David Blevins wrote:
>
>> We've shipped four non-certified Jetty distributions, let's go
>> ahead with a Tomcat distribution in the same vein. If we need to
>> go over some J2EE licensing requirements, let's do it on the TCK
>> list.
>>
>
> When we did that we only released one binary so there was no
> ambiguity in the release. If the Jetty version of M5 is certified
> and the Tomcat version isn't, it will be misleading to users.
>
> -1 on any M5 binary that is not certified.
IIRC a release can not be vetoed except for a technical reason, so
this is a -1 opinion and not a official veto.
-dain
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
David Blevins wrote:
>
> We've shipped four non-certified Jetty distributions, let's go ahead
> with a Tomcat distribution in the same vein. If we need to go over
> some J2EE licensing requirements, let's do it on the TCK list.
>
When we did that we only released one binary so there was no ambiguity
in the release. If the Jetty version of M5 is certified and the Tomcat
version isn't, it will be misleading to users.
-1 on any M5 binary that is not certified.
--
Jeremy
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 24, 2005, at 4:47 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:31 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:07 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's proceed with our Tomcat distribution as we have done with
>>>> our non-certified Jetty distributions and tackle any additional
>>>> licensing requirements on the TCK list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes?
>>
>
> That didn't parse for me. I don't understand what you mean.
We've shipped four non-certified Jetty distributions, let's go ahead
with a Tomcat distribution in the same vein. If we need to go over
some J2EE licensing requirements, let's do it on the TCK list.
-David
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:31 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:07 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's proceed with our Tomcat distribution as we have done with
>>> our non-certified Jetty distributions and tackle any additional
>>> licensing requirements on the TCK list.
>>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>
> Yes?
That didn't parse for me. I don't understand what you mean.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 24, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:07 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'll start...
>>>> A) Must haves
>>>> Tomcat binary.
>>>> B) Nice to haves
>>>> Tomcat passing the TCK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we're releasing the binary then having it pass the TCK is also
>>> a must have (for consistency at least, never mind the legal issues).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Let's proceed with our Tomcat distribution as we have done with
>> our non-certified Jetty distributions and tackle any additional
>> licensing requirements on the TCK list.
>>
>>
>
> ?
>
Yes?
-David
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:07 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
>
>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'll start...
>>> A) Must haves
>>> Tomcat binary.
>>> B) Nice to haves
>>> Tomcat passing the TCK.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If we're releasing the binary then having it pass the TCK is also
>> a must have (for consistency at least, never mind the legal issues).
>>
>>
>
> Let's proceed with our Tomcat distribution as we have done with our
> non-certified Jetty distributions and tackle any additional
> licensing requirements on the TCK list.
>
?
> -David
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 24, 2005, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> I'll start...
>> A) Must haves
>> Tomcat binary.
>> B) Nice to haves
>> Tomcat passing the TCK.
>>
>
> If we're releasing the binary then having it pass the TCK is also a
> must have (for consistency at least, never mind the legal issues).
>
Let's proceed with our Tomcat distribution as we have done with our
non-certified Jetty distributions and tackle any additional licensing
requirements on the TCK list.
-David
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
> I'll start...
>
> A) Must haves
>
> Tomcat binary.
>
> B) Nice to haves
>
> Tomcat passing the TCK.
>
If we're releasing the binary then having it pass the TCK is also a must
have (for consistency at least, never mind the legal issues).
--
Jeremy
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
I'll start...
A) Must haves
Tomcat binary.
B) Nice to haves
Tomcat passing the TCK.
Jeff Genender wrote:
> Hello community,
>
> I have decided (with goading from certain team members) to step up and
> be the goat herder on getting out M5. This is likely due to this
> release being the Tomcat coming out party ;-) I will be aided by Bruce
> Snyder and David Blevins, both my copilots, but it looks like I will be
> the captain on this one...yikes! So bear with me in any faux pas I may
> bring along the way.
>
> This will be the kick off email...so lets start with a few basic questions.
>
> 1) When do we want to release M5? I mean this from a concrete date
> perspective. I would like to see an official 9/9/2005 date.
>
>
> 2) What do we want as part of the M5 release. I ask that we break this
> down into A) Must haves, B) Nice to haves, C) Fuhgetaboutit.
>
>
> 3) I would like to see the M5 cut with a 5 day window between QA code
> freeze and release. Thus QA cut on 9/4. Does this sound reasonable?
>
> Any other issues, lets make em a part of this thread.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 8/24/05, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Can we agree on the features first and pick the date based on
> > that?
>
> I would like to pick an absolute minimum feature set and push really
> hard for the date.
I'm in favor of this as well. But we need to get people assigned to
issues *before* we decide on a date for the release.
> >> 3) I would like to see the M5 cut with a 5 day window between QA code
> >> freeze and release. Thus QA cut on 9/4. Does this sound reasonable?
> >
> > It took substantially more than 5 days to complete TCK testing for
> > M4, plus we have to do it all for Tomcat this time too. Granted that
> > was
> > the week of OSCon, but I'm not altogether sure that 5 days is enough.
I think that five days is enough, especially if we only include issues
that are:
a) Assigned to someone
b) Able to be completed by the release date
> Basically, i'm willing to drop just about any jira entry I haven't
> signed up for and doesn't really break stuff. If no one will sign up
> and fix some of these promptly, what else should we do?
I agree, if we can't get someone to which to assign an issue, then it
should not be included unless there's damn good reason.
At this time, I've only got one issue assigned to me and it will be
completed in time for inclusion in M5.
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: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, David Jencks wrote:
> I've commented with **DJNO those I think are not must haves: a couple
> of your optionals I think are essential.
>
> Basically, i'm willing to drop just about any jira entry I haven't
> signed up for and doesn't really break stuff. If no one will sign up
> and fix some of these promptly, what else should we do?
OK, I updated the list below with the new M5 items since the last
time I sent it out (those marked as NEW). I also marked as "(Review)" the
ones I think are fixed and jsut need to be reviewed. And there are two
that are Sing Li's sample apps and just need to be imported and tried.
I'm willing to do all the ones with my name on them for M5, with
the possible exception of 817 -- we have a working workaround
(reflection), and I don't personally feel the "proper solution" is real
high-priority for M5.
I expect to keep updating this as more things come up (such as
issues we create to track web console work targeted for M5).
Thanks,
Aaron
Must Have
---------
194 - Gianny, NEW (Review)
310 - NEW (Review)
337 - David B, NEW
343 - David J
348 - Aaron, NEW
395 - Greg, NEW (Review)
409 - **DJNO
477 - Aaron, NEW
479 - NEW (Review)
480 - Aaron, NEW
518 - Aaron (Review)
526 - Dain, NEW (Review)
569 - Greg **DJNO
589 - Jeff this is done, jeff please check and close it.
603 - Alan
605 - **DJNO
627 - Davanum **DJNO
631 - John **DJNO
640 - Alan **DJNO
646 - Alan
664 - Jeff
674 - Aaron, NEW
675 - Gianny, NEW (Review)
681 - haven't heard back, I'm closing this.
688 - NEW (Review)
700 -
704 -
705 -
706 - **DJNO
728 - John **DJNO
730 - NEW (Sample App)
731 - NEW (Sample App)
734 - **DJNO
754 - **DJNO
774 -
806 - **DJNO
817 - Aaron **DJNO
818 - John **DJNO
823 - David J
822 - David J
847 - **DJNO
853 - Dain **DJNO
855 - **DJNO
859 -
861 - **DJNO
870 - Davanum
871 - Bruce **DJNO
872 - David J **DJNO
883 - Alan
890 - Alan
905 -
912 -
918 - Aaron, NEW
925 - David J, NEW
Nice to Have
------------
484 - David J
733 -
739 -
744 -
766 - John
858 -
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Jeff Genender wrote:
>> 1) When do we want to release M5? I mean this from a concrete date
>> perspective. I would like to see an official 9/9/2005 date.
>
> Can we agree on the features first and pick the date based on
> that?
I would like to pick an absolute minimum feature set and push really
hard for the date.
>
>> 3) I would like to see the M5 cut with a 5 day window between QA code
>> freeze and release. Thus QA cut on 9/4. Does this sound reasonable?
>
> It took substantially more than 5 days to complete TCK testing for
> M4, plus we have to do it all for Tomcat this time too. Granted that
> was
> the week of OSCon, but I'm not altogether sure that 5 days is enough.
> I
> think David J ran the bulk of the TCK tests on M4 -- David, can you
> ocmment on the time frame for a full run?
It all depends :-) I think it takes about 48-72 hours on one linux
box. I would like to run tests in parallel on several boxes. I found
it rather distracting to try to run the tests while at oscon: I think I
can get more actual testing time while at home. I would like to keep
the 5 day plan and see how many boxes we can line up. I'm not sure
what the requirements are as to how similar the boxes have to be so
they fit in the same certification matrix box. Anyone know? I have an
amd athlon box running debian linux with a 2.6.9 (?) kernel and sun jdk
1.4.2_08.
>
>> 2) What do we want as part of the M5 release. I ask that we break
>> this
>> down into A) Must haves, B) Nice to haves, C) Fuhgetaboutit.
>
> Here's my estimate of the stuff slated for M5. Note that there are
> over
> 100 (!) JIRA issues that have yet to be prioritied for a particular
> release, and undoubtedly some of those should be candidates for M5.
> Anyway, I put a lot of bug fixes on the must have list beacuse they
> look
> simple and I'd like to make a concerted effort to correct them (and a
> few
> looked like they might be fixed already and simply require review).
> Finally, there are still a couple of SNAPSHOTS and we need to make sure
> all those are corrected before any testing begins.
Some time ago I went through the unassigned issues and put the ones I
thought should be in m5 in m5, and asked others to do the same. So I
think we can postpone all or most of the unassigned issues.
We should start running the tests more or less now to look for
problems, especially with tomcat.
>
> Aaron
I've commented with **DJNO those I think are not must haves: a couple
of your optionals I think are essential.
Basically, i'm willing to drop just about any jira entry I haven't
signed up for and doesn't really break stuff. If no one will sign up
and fix some of these promptly, what else should we do?
thanks
david jencks
>
> Must Have
> ---------
> 870 - Davanum
> 518 - Aaron
> 409 - **DJNO
> 605 - **DJNO
> 734 - **DJNO
> 681 - haven't heard back, I'm closing this.
> 700 -
> 704 -
> 705 -
> 774 -
> 806 - **DJNO
> 664 - Jeff
> 603 - Alan
> 818 - John **DJNO
> 728 - John **DJNO
> 627 - Davanum **DJNO
> 569 - Greg **DJNO
> 640 - Alan **DJNO
> 847 - **DJNO
> 855 - **DJNO
> 861 - **DJNO
> 859 -
> 871 - Bruce **DJNO
> 890 - Alan
> 589 - Jeff this is done, jeff please check and close it.
> 905 -
> 343 - David J
> 883 - Alan
> 823 - David J
> 822 - David J
> 872 - David J **DJNO
> 912 -
> 631 - John **DJNO
> 706 - **DJNO
> 754 - **DJNO
> 646 - Alan
>
> Nice to Have
> ------------
> 817 - Aaron DJ this is required
> 739 -
> 744 -
> 858 -
> 484 - David J
> 853 - Dain DJ this is required
> 733 -
> 766 - John
>
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Jeff Genender wrote:
> 1) When do we want to release M5? I mean this from a concrete date
> perspective. I would like to see an official 9/9/2005 date.
Can we agree on the features first and pick the date based on
that?
> 3) I would like to see the M5 cut with a 5 day window between QA code
> freeze and release. Thus QA cut on 9/4. Does this sound reasonable?
It took substantially more than 5 days to complete TCK testing for
M4, plus we have to do it all for Tomcat this time too. Granted that was
the week of OSCon, but I'm not altogether sure that 5 days is enough. I
think David J ran the bulk of the TCK tests on M4 -- David, can you
ocmment on the time frame for a full run?
> 2) What do we want as part of the M5 release. I ask that we break this
> down into A) Must haves, B) Nice to haves, C) Fuhgetaboutit.
Here's my estimate of the stuff slated for M5. Note that there are over
100 (!) JIRA issues that have yet to be prioritied for a particular
release, and undoubtedly some of those should be candidates for M5.
Anyway, I put a lot of bug fixes on the must have list beacuse they look
simple and I'd like to make a concerted effort to correct them (and a few
looked like they might be fixed already and simply require review).
Finally, there are still a couple of SNAPSHOTS and we need to make sure
all those are corrected before any testing begins.
Aaron
Must Have
---------
870 - Davanum
518 - Aaron
409 -
605 -
734 -
681 -
700 -
704 -
705 -
774 -
806 -
664 - Jeff
603 - Alan
818 - John
728 - John
627 - Davanum
569 - Greg
640 - Alan
847 -
855 -
861 -
859 -
871 - Bruce
890 - Alan
589 - Jeff
905 -
343 - David J
883 - Alan
823 - David J
822 - David J
872 - David J
912 -
631 - John
706 -
754 -
646 - Alan
Nice to Have
------------
817 - Aaron
739 -
744 -
858 -
484 - David J
853 - Dain
733 -
766 - John
Re: M5 Time ;-)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
Yay!
On Aug 24, 2005, at 5:31 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Hello community,
>
> I have decided (with goading from certain team members) to step up
> and be the goat herder on getting out M5. This is likely due to
> this release being the Tomcat coming out party ;-) I will be aided
> by Bruce Snyder and David Blevins, both my copilots, but it looks
> like I will be the captain on this one...yikes! So bear with me in
> any faux pas I may bring along the way.
>
> This will be the kick off email...so lets start with a few basic
> questions.
>
> 1) When do we want to release M5? I mean this from a concrete date
> perspective. I would like to see an official 9/9/2005 date.
>
>
> 2) What do we want as part of the M5 release. I ask that we break
> this down into A) Must haves, B) Nice to haves, C) Fuhgetaboutit.
>
>
> 3) I would like to see the M5 cut with a 5 day window between QA
> code freeze and release. Thus QA cut on 9/4. Does this sound
> reasonable?
>
> Any other issues, lets make em a part of this thread.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
> --
> Jeff Genender
> http://geronimo.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org