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 2005/09/19 01:31:26 UTC
Re: M5 - 24hr notice of branch - done
Jeff's been traveling around the world speaking, so I'm helping him
out with the creating the M5 copy (cvs term: "branch").
Here is the command for those interested:
svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/trunk https://
svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5-QA
-David
On Sep 16, 2005, at 12:34 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> The subject says it all ;-)
>
> Jeff
>
>
Re: M5 - 24hr notice of branch - switched
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
>> In the future, could we drop "QA"? You know, make it just the
>> "1.0-M6" branch. Again, more important once we have release we're
>> committed to maintain instead of replace, but I think the "QA" in
>> the name contributes to the confusion over whether it should be
>> deleted or not after the target release.
>>
>
> I also like the idea of droping the QA designation in the branch
> name. I think that this is what was cause for confusion about the
> M4 branch.
>
Done. Renamed it to 1.0-M5.
If anyone checked out 1.0-M5-QA in the two hours since I created the
copy, just run this:
svn switch https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5
That will make your local copy resolve to the URL above.
In fact, that will work if you want to switch your copy of trunk to
the 1.0-M5 area and keep working.
-David
Re: M5 - 24hr notice of branch - done
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sep 19, 2005, at 9:42 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 9/19/2005 6:32 AM:
>
>
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2005, at 7:59 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Aaron Mulder wrote, On 9/18/2005 4:51 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> OK. I still have stuff I want to get in, but I can add it to
>>>> both M5 and HEAD.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -1 one should not be adding features to two branches.
>>>
>>
>>
>> But fixes we do... for example, I still have to get those
>> replacement files in place from Rick, and any fixes we do to pass
>> CTS must go into HEAD, or we do this all over again next time.
>>
>
>
> Agreed, bug fixes we do put into both branches. However, Aaron is
> talking about features, IIUC.
Oh, sorry.
> Just to be succinct, my -1 is a real technical veto on adding
> features, not bug fixes, to both branches; though I am not
> intransigent and am willing to discuss it further.
>
Ok - I agree. If there are any features that are must-haves, lets
discuss and get them in and re-do the branch...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: M5 - 24hr notice of branch - done
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 9/19/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> Well, I've accepted all along that I have more things I want to get in than
> most people. I don't think there's widespread agreement to hold the branch
> until I'm done. At some point it will go into a real freeze mode and then
> I'll stop wherever I am. :)
>
> Still, there are 78 JIRAs marked for M5, so someone ought to go through
> those and decide which should be put off until M6.
Agreed and here's a link to the list of open issues marked for M5:
http://tinyurl.com/beq8r
IMO, if someone is the assignee for an issue that is marked for M5,
then it's their responsibility to look at the issue and make a
determination about whether it can be included in M5 or if it needs to
be pushed off to M6. Do others agree on this task? If not, please
suggest alternative(s).
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 - 24hr notice of branch - done
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Well, I've accepted all along that I have more things I want to get in than
most people. I don't think there's widespread agreement to hold the branch
until I'm done. At some point it will go into a real freeze mode and then
I'll stop wherever I am. :)
Still, there are 78 JIRAs marked for M5, so someone ought to go through
those and decide which should be put off until M6.
Aaron
On 9/19/05, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/19/2005 8:23 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> On 9/19/05, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, bug fixes we do put into both branches. However, Aaron is
> > talking about features, IIUC.
> >
> > Just to be succinct, my -1 is a real technical veto on adding features,
> > not bug fixes, to both branches; though I am not intransigent and am
> > willing to discuss it further.
>
>
> I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, since I don't think I
> really said what I was talking about. But here's an example:
>
> - Adding the management API for server logs. Without this, the console
> screen breaks if the Jetty GBean name is changed, and Tomcat does not work.
>
> Now this is kind of a new feature, but kind of a bug fix too. I'd be
> inclined to put it in, since I think we'd like Tomcat to be fairly well
> supported, and the current code is arguably broken.
>
> Some of the other JIRA's on my M5 list are:
> - make the server require an argument if you want to give a list of
> Configurations to start on the command line
> - make the deployer require an argument if you want it to run in offline
> mode
> - invalid references in deployment plan should give meaningful error
> message to deployer
> - breakage if more than one configuration manager found
> - installer needs to be updated to reflect current product configuration
> options
>
>
> This is a lot of work to add to two branches. Maybe we cut the branch too
> early.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
Re: M5 - 24hr notice of branch - done
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On 9/19/2005 8:23 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 9/19/05, *Alan D. Cabrera* <list@toolazydogs.com
> <ma...@toolazydogs.com>> wrote:
>
> Agreed, bug fixes we do put into both branches. However, Aaron is
> talking about features, IIUC.
>
> Just to be succinct, my -1 is a real technical veto on adding
> features,
> not bug fixes, to both branches; though I am not intransigent and am
> willing to discuss it further.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, since I don't think I
> really said what I was talking about. But here's an example:
>
> - Adding the management API for server logs. Without this, the
> console screen breaks if the Jetty GBean name is changed, and Tomcat
> does not work.
>
> Now this is kind of a new feature, but kind of a bug fix too. I'd be
> inclined to put it in, since I think we'd like Tomcat to be fairly
> well supported, and the current code is arguably broken.
>
> Some of the other JIRA's on my M5 list are:
> - make the server require an argument if you want to give a list of
> Configurations to start on the command line
> - make the deployer require an argument if you want it to run in
> offline mode
> - invalid references in deployment plan should give meaningful error
> message to deployer
> - breakage if more than one configuration manager found
> - installer needs to be updated to reflect current product
> configuration options
This is a lot of work to add to two branches. Maybe we cut the branch
too early.
Regards,
Alan
Re: M5 - 24hr notice of branch - done
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 9/19/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> On 9/19/05, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> > Agreed, bug fixes we do put into both branches. However, Aaron is
> > talking about features, IIUC.
> >
> > Just to be succinct, my -1 is a real technical veto on adding features,
> > not bug fixes, to both branches; though I am not intransigent and am
> > willing to discuss it further.
>
> I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, since I don't think I really
> said what I was talking about. But here's an example:
>
> - Adding the management API for server logs. Without this, the console
> screen breaks if the Jetty GBean name is changed, and Tomcat does not work.
>
> Now this is kind of a new feature, but kind of a bug fix too. I'd be
> inclined to put it in, since I think we'd like Tomcat to be fairly well
> supported, and the current code is arguably broken.
>
> Some of the other JIRA's on my M5 list are:
> - make the server require an argument if you want to give a list of
> Configurations to start on the command line
> - make the deployer require an argument if you want it to run in offline
> mode
> - invalid references in deployment plan should give meaningful error
> message to deployer
> - breakage if more than one configuration manager found
> - installer needs to be updated to reflect current product configuration
> options
OK, if this stuff is done now, add it and we'll recut the branch. If
it's not done now, save it for M6 (which, IMO, should start to be
rolled together within about one month of the release of M5). My point
is that we need to cut this release and move on. We can't keep holding
up things longer and longer until it's absolutely perfect (I'm
thinking about Matt Hogstrom's message regarding the message we're
sending the community by continuing to waffle). IMO, we need to
continue performing milestone releases until we feel that 1.0 is ready
to go. There's no crime in continuing with milestone releases.
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 - 24hr notice of branch - done
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
Just a reminder about the Tomcat/Jetty welcome page.
Even though it is just a cosmetic change. Comments ???
Thanks
Anita
--- Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
> On 9/19/05, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, bug fixes we do put into both branches.
> However, Aaron is
> > talking about features, IIUC.
> >
> > Just to be succinct, my -1 is a real technical
> veto on adding features,
> > not bug fixes, to both branches; though I am not
> intransigent and am
> > willing to discuss it further.
>
>
> I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, since
> I don't think I really
> said what I was talking about. But here's an
> example:
>
> - Adding the management API for server logs. Without
> this, the console
> screen breaks if the Jetty GBean name is changed,
> and Tomcat does not work.
>
> Now this is kind of a new feature, but kind of a bug
> fix too. I'd be
> inclined to put it in, since I think we'd like
> Tomcat to be fairly well
> supported, and the current code is arguably broken.
>
> Some of the other JIRA's on my M5 list are:
> - make the server require an argument if you want to
> give a list of
> Configurations to start on the command line
> - make the deployer require an argument if you want
> it to run in offline
> mode
> - invalid references in deployment plan should give
> meaningful error message
> to deployer
> - breakage if more than one configuration manager
> found
> - installer needs to be updated to reflect current
> product configuration
> options
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: M5 - 24hr notice of branch - done
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 9/19/05, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
> Agreed, bug fixes we do put into both branches. However, Aaron is
> talking about features, IIUC.
>
> Just to be succinct, my -1 is a real technical veto on adding features,
> not bug fixes, to both branches; though I am not intransigent and am
> willing to discuss it further.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, since I don't think I really
said what I was talking about. But here's an example:
- Adding the management API for server logs. Without this, the console
screen breaks if the Jetty GBean name is changed, and Tomcat does not work.
Now this is kind of a new feature, but kind of a bug fix too. I'd be
inclined to put it in, since I think we'd like Tomcat to be fairly well
supported, and the current code is arguably broken.
Some of the other JIRA's on my M5 list are:
- make the server require an argument if you want to give a list of
Configurations to start on the command line
- make the deployer require an argument if you want it to run in offline
mode
- invalid references in deployment plan should give meaningful error message
to deployer
- breakage if more than one configuration manager found
- installer needs to be updated to reflect current product configuration
options
Re: M5 - 24hr notice of branch - done
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 9/19/2005 6:32 AM:
>
> On Sep 18, 2005, at 7:59 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> Aaron Mulder wrote, On 9/18/2005 4:51 PM:
>>
>>
>>> OK. I still have stuff I want to get in, but I can add it to both
>>> M5 and HEAD.
>>>
>>
>> -1 one should not be adding features to two branches.
>
>
> But fixes we do... for example, I still have to get those
> replacement files in place from Rick, and any fixes we do to pass CTS
> must go into HEAD, or we do this all over again next time.
Agreed, bug fixes we do put into both branches. However, Aaron is
talking about features, IIUC.
Just to be succinct, my -1 is a real technical veto on adding features,
not bug fixes, to both branches; though I am not intransigent and am
willing to discuss it further.
Regards,
Alan
Re: M5 - 24hr notice of branch - done
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sep 18, 2005, at 7:59 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Aaron Mulder wrote, On 9/18/2005 4:51 PM:
>
>
>> OK. I still have stuff I want to get in, but I can add it to both
>> M5 and HEAD.
>>
>
> -1 one should not be adding features to two branches.
But fixes we do... for example, I still have to get those
replacement files in place from Rick, and any fixes we do to pass CTS
must go into HEAD, or we do this all over again next time.
>
>
>>
>> In the future, could we drop "QA"? You know, make it just the
>> "1.0-M6" branch. Again, more important once we have release we're
>> committed to maintain instead of replace, but I think the "QA" in
>> the name contributes to the confusion over whether it should be
>> deleted or not after the target release.
>>
>
> I also like the idea of droping the QA designation in the branch
> name. I think that this is what was cause for confusion about the
> M4 branch.
>
Agreed.
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: M5 - 24hr notice of branch - done
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 9/18/2005 4:51 PM:
> OK. I still have stuff I want to get in, but I can add it to both M5
> and HEAD.
-1 one should not be adding features to two branches.
>
> In the future, could we drop "QA"? You know, make it just the
> "1.0-M6" branch. Again, more important once we have release we're
> committed to maintain instead of replace, but I think the "QA" in the
> name contributes to the confusion over whether it should be deleted or
> not after the target release.
I also like the idea of droping the QA designation in the branch name.
I think that this is what was cause for confusion about the M4 branch.
Regards,
Alan
Re: M5 - 24hr notice of branch - done
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
OK. I still have stuff I want to get in, but I can add it to both M5 and
HEAD.
In the future, could we drop "QA"? You know, make it just the "1.0-M6"
branch. Again, more important once we have release we're committed to
maintain instead of replace, but I think the "QA" in the name contributes to
the confusion over whether it should be deleted or not after the target
release.
Finally, is there a matching OpenEJB branch? If so, does the M5 Geronimo
branch check it out for the "m:co" target?
Thanks,
Aaron
On 9/18/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> Jeff's been traveling around the world speaking, so I'm helping him
> out with the creating the M5 copy (cvs term: "branch").
>
> Here is the command for those interested:
>
> svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/trunk https://
> svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5-QA<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5-QA>
>
> -David
>
> On Sep 16, 2005, at 12:34 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> > The subject says it all ;-)
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
>
>