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...@savoirtech.com> on 2005/09/07 06:33:55 UTC
[VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote on it...
[ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
[ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
For me:
[X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
David Blevins wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that aren't on
>>> the list.
>>>
>>
>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something isn't
>> on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a closure
>> date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is minimally in
>> the cut.
>>
>>
>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing period to
>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that would
>>> mean a
>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold off on
>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward greater
>>> stability in the mean time.
>>>
>>
>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with this? I
>> am game.
>>
>
> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was thinking
> about; getting further and further from stable the long we wait to
> branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>
> +1
>
> David
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <jl...@apache.org>.
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
Jacek
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 9/7/05, Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com> wrote:
[X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
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: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 9/7/2005 10:06 AM:
>
> On Sep 7, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>>
>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>> [X] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on 9/16/05
>
>
> Can you shine a little light on why? Was there something missed that
> you want to get in there?
I want to fix the security stuff. I should be able to get it done by
this weekend.
Regards,
Alan
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sep 7, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
> [X] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on 9/16/05
Can you shine a little light on why? Was there something missed that
you want to get in there?
>
>
> BTW, in the future, please start a vote on a new email thread.
>
Good point.
geir
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
[ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
[X] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on 9/16/05
BTW, in the future, please start a vote on a new email thread.
Regards,
Alan
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
-David
On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote
> on it...
>
> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>
>
> For me:
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>
>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that
>>>> aren't on the list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>> period to
>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>> would mean a
>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold
>>>> off on
>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>> this? I am game.
>>>
>>>
>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was thinking
>> about; getting further and further from stable the long we wait
>> to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>> +1
>> David
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Sep 7, 2005, at 12:33 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote
> on it...
>
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
-dain
Re: Monday Checkpoint re M5 Cut (Was Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal
date)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Ok...9/16 then...but this is now 4 days warning. 9/16 needs to be it
(yes I know...someone needs to be the bad cop). ;-)
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> The count was :
>
> 9/9 : Jacek, Joe (non committer), Bruce, Geir, Dain, David B, Jeff
> 9/16 : Alan, Gianny,
>
> with David J then suggesting on friday (9/9) that given the state of
> things, we wait until monday (today, 9/12) and re-evaluate.
>
> It seems like we're making great progress, but still not there yet as
> of now - we need to fix the regressions so we don't have to fix the
> code in two places (which is probably what bit us from M4).
>
> Maybe your 9/16 will be it after all :)
>
> geir
>
> On Sep 12, 2005, at 10:55 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> I thought we were going to cut on 9/16
>>
>> On 9/12/2005 4:15 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think today will be it ;-)
>>>
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, where do we think we are today?
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards
>>>>> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be
>>>>> reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that
>>>>> people want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation)
>>>>> that I would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed
>>>>> in any case before the release. I think that unless someone is
>>>>> waiting to get a new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should
>>>>> wait until monday and see where we are.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
>>>>> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets
>>>>>> vote on it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>>>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me:
>>>>>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point,
>>>>>>>>> it doesn't appear to have stopped development of things
>>>>>>>>> that aren't on the list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If
>>>>>>>> something isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then
>>>>>>>> fine. We need a closure date at this point. I think we have
>>>>>>>> all agreed what is minimally in the cut.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code
>>>>>>>>> not on
>>>>>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>>>>>>> period to
>>>>>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>>>>>>> would mean a
>>>>>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold
>>>>>>>>> off on
>>>>>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>>>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was
>>>>>>> thinking about; getting further and further from stable the
>>>>>>> long we wait to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Monday Checkpoint re M5 Cut (Was Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
The count was :
9/9 : Jacek, Joe (non committer), Bruce, Geir, Dain, David B, Jeff
9/16 : Alan, Gianny,
with David J then suggesting on friday (9/9) that given the state of
things, we wait until monday (today, 9/12) and re-evaluate.
It seems like we're making great progress, but still not there yet as
of now - we need to fix the regressions so we don't have to fix the
code in two places (which is probably what bit us from M4).
Maybe your 9/16 will be it after all :)
geir
On Sep 12, 2005, at 10:55 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I thought we were going to cut on 9/16
>
> On 9/12/2005 4:15 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>
>> I think today will be it ;-)
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So, where do we think we are today?
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think we've made significant progress in the last week
>>>> towards being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think
>>>> there may be reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2
>>>> features that people want to get in (security improvements and
>>>> DDL generation) that I would like to see in M5, and more
>>>> stabilization is needed in any case before the release. I
>>>> think that unless someone is waiting to get a new feature in
>>>> that shouldn't go in M5 we should wait until monday and see
>>>> where we are.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our
>>>> code please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets
>>>>> vote on it...
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For me:
>>>>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point,
>>>>>>>> it doesn't appear to have stopped development of things
>>>>>>>> that aren't on the list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If
>>>>>>> something isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then
>>>>>>> fine. We need a closure date at this point. I think we
>>>>>>> have all agreed what is minimally in the cut.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any
>>>>>>>> code not on
>>>>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer
>>>>>>>> closing period to
>>>>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so
>>>>>>>> that would mean a
>>>>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to
>>>>>>>> hold off on
>>>>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was
>>>>>> thinking about; getting further and further from stable the
>>>>>> long we wait to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Monday Checkpoint re M5 Cut (Was Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal
date)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
I thought we were going to cut on 9/16
On 9/12/2005 4:15 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> I think today will be it ;-)
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> So, where do we think we are today?
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards
>>> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be
>>> reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that
>>> people want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation)
>>> that I would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed in
>>> any case before the release. I think that unless someone is
>>> waiting to get a new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should
>>> wait until monday and see where we are.
>>>
>>> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
>>> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote
>>>> on it...
>>>>
>>>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For me:
>>>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that
>>>>>>> aren't on the list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>>>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>>>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>>>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code
>>>>>>> not on
>>>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>>>>> period to
>>>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>>>>> would mean a
>>>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold
>>>>>>> off on
>>>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was
>>>>> thinking about; getting further and further from stable the long
>>>>> we wait to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>>>> +1
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Monday Checkpoint re M5 Cut (Was Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal
date)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
I think today will be it ;-)
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> So, where do we think we are today?
>
> geir
>
> On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards
>> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be
>> reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that people
>> want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation) that I
>> would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed in any case
>> before the release. I think that unless someone is waiting to get a
>> new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should wait until monday
>> and see where we are.
>>
>> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
>> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote on
>>> it...
>>>
>>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>>
>>>
>>> For me:
>>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>
>>>
>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that aren't
>>>>>> on the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
>>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>>>> period to
>>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>>>> would mean a
>>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold off on
>>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was thinking
>>>> about; getting further and further from stable the long we wait to
>>>> branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>>> +1
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Monday Checkpoint re M5 Cut (Was Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal
date)
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> So, where do we think we are today?
>
Closer but that there are still regressions that need to be fixed and
there is no point in fixing them twice.
--
Jeremy
Monday Checkpoint re M5 Cut (Was Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
So, where do we think we are today?
geir
On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards
> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be
> reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that
> people want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation)
> that I would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed in
> any case before the release. I think that unless someone is
> waiting to get a new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should
> wait until monday and see where we are.
>
> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>
>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote
>> on it...
>>
>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>
>>
>> For me:
>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>
>>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that
>>>>> aren't on the list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code
>>>>> not on
>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>>> period to
>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>>> would mean a
>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold
>>>>> off on
>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was
>>> thinking about; getting further and further from stable the long
>>> we wait to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>> +1
>>> David
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On 9/9/2005 4:55 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> I've taken a look at both solutions for the openejb ASN1 usage. The
> ASN1 bouncy castle code is realatively selfcontained, and can be
> separated out an repackaged relatively quickly. I've already managed
> to build a version of the BC code that contains just the classes
> necessary to get the asn1 subdirectory to compile, and am working on a
> "pruned" version that removes support not likely to be required for
> openejb/geronimo. Once that is done, the changes to openejb are
> pretty trivial (mostly just changing package names). Right now, I'm
> planning on creating a util module in Geronimo for this to live.
>
> The Directory stuff is a little trickier. The Directory ASN1 support
> doesn't include support for different types of objects that use ASN1
> encodings (in this case X509 names). I took a crack at writing the
> equivalent, and found the Directory ASN1 support to be incomplete
> enough that you'd end up reimplementing a lot of the bc classes in the
> Directory. A "quick-and-dirty" approach just implementing X509 name
> parsing in the openejb Util module look doable, but was still a fairly
> tricky bit of code AND required some enhancements to the Directory
> ans1 support to implement. Right now, the bc subset version looks
> like the best route to take.
Let's go with the former. Toss it up on the Jira issue and I'll get to
it immediately.
Thanks for all your help on this.
Regards,
Alan
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards
>> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be
>> reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that
>> people want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation)
>> that I would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed in
>> any case before the release. I think that unless someone is waiting
>> to get a new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should wait until
>> monday and see where we are.
>>
>> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
>> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
>
>
> Along with your list in the initial thread, we need to deal with the
> BouncyCastle situation, since we need to stop shipping this jar. The
> status quo is unacceptable because of the patent encumbrance of IDEA
> and therefore the liability that could be accidentally triggered.
> Rick has done some great work on hunting this down. (http://
> issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-880) I think the fix is easy
> on our side - we can just change the keystore portlet to detect BC
> and do something different if not there (like show a page telling
> user where to get it if they want it, etc...) but right now, we need
> OpenEJB to remove the dependency. For OpenEJB, I think there are two
> aspects - the inclusion of IDEA in the SSLCipherSuite list (modules/
> core/src/java/org/openejb/corba/sunorb/SSLCipherSuiteDatabase.java)
> and it's usage of the ASN1 codec. I don't know what they (OpenEJB)
> want to do there - it's been suggested that the necessary code can be
> copied (it's under a modified X.Net-ish license) or Directory could
> be enhanced and used. It seems the former is simpler.
>
> Ideas? (No pun intended...)
I've taken a look at both solutions for the openejb ASN1 usage. The
ASN1 bouncy castle code is realatively selfcontained, and can be
separated out an repackaged relatively quickly. I've already managed to
build a version of the BC code that contains just the classes necessary
to get the asn1 subdirectory to compile, and am working on a "pruned"
version that removes support not likely to be required for
openejb/geronimo. Once that is done, the changes to openejb are pretty
trivial (mostly just changing package names). Right now, I'm planning
on creating a util module in Geronimo for this to live.
The Directory stuff is a little trickier. The Directory ASN1 support
doesn't include support for different types of objects that use ASN1
encodings (in this case X509 names). I took a crack at writing the
equivalent, and found the Directory ASN1 support to be incomplete enough
that you'd end up reimplementing a lot of the bc classes in the
Directory. A "quick-and-dirty" approach just implementing X509 name
parsing in the openejb Util module look doable, but was still a fairly
tricky bit of code AND required some enhancements to the Directory ans1
support to implement. Right now, the bc subset version looks like the
best route to take.
>
> geir
>
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote
>>> on it...
>>>
>>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>>
>>>
>>> For me:
>>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>
>>>
>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that
>>>>>> aren't on the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
>>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>>>> period to
>>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>>>> would mean a
>>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold
>>>>>> off on
>>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was thinking
>>>> about; getting further and further from stable the long we wait
>>>> to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>>> +1
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards
> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be
> reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that
> people want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation)
> that I would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed in
> any case before the release. I think that unless someone is
> waiting to get a new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should
> wait until monday and see where we are.
>
> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
Along with your list in the initial thread, we need to deal with the
BouncyCastle situation, since we need to stop shipping this jar. The
status quo is unacceptable because of the patent encumbrance of IDEA
and therefore the liability that could be accidentally triggered.
Rick has done some great work on hunting this down. (http://
issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-880) I think the fix is easy
on our side - we can just change the keystore portlet to detect BC
and do something different if not there (like show a page telling
user where to get it if they want it, etc...) but right now, we need
OpenEJB to remove the dependency. For OpenEJB, I think there are two
aspects - the inclusion of IDEA in the SSLCipherSuite list (modules/
core/src/java/org/openejb/corba/sunorb/SSLCipherSuiteDatabase.java)
and it's usage of the ASN1 codec. I don't know what they (OpenEJB)
want to do there - it's been suggested that the necessary code can be
copied (it's under a modified X.Net-ish license) or Directory could
be enhanced and used. It seems the former is simpler.
Ideas? (No pun intended...)
geir
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>
>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote
>> on it...
>>
>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>
>>
>> For me:
>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>
>>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that
>>>>> aren't on the list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code
>>>>> not on
>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>>> period to
>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>>> would mean a
>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold
>>>>> off on
>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was
>>> thinking about; getting further and further from stable the long
>>> we wait to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>> +1
>>> David
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards being
ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be reasons to
wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that people want to get
in (security improvements and DDL generation) that I would like to see
in M5, and more stabilization is needed in any case before the release.
I think that unless someone is waiting to get a new feature in that
shouldn't go in M5 we should wait until monday and see where we are.
If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
thanks
david jencks
On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote on
> it...
>
> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>
>
> For me:
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that aren't
>>>> on the list.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>> period to
>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that would
>>>> mean a
>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold off on
>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward greater
>>>> stability in the mean time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with this?
>>> I am game.
>>>
>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was thinking
>> about; getting further and further from stable the long we wait to
>> branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>> +1
>> David
>
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
I'm not a committer but I'd like to add my backing for 9/9 QA cut.
I think we have to keep produce regular milestones/releases to keep the
momentum.
> :
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>
--
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: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sep 7, 2005, at 12:33 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org