You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> on 2005/10/26 17:38:44 UTC
1.0 JIRAs
All,
I'm going through the open JIRAs to see what is a 1.0 requirement and what is a
future feature. For example, the likelyhood of getting the TriFork ORB done
before 1.0 is probably not likely (but would be nice).
Anyone have suggestions on how to communicate this? I was going to send out a
list of the JIRAs and my take on what we need to get done for 1.0 in a note to
the Dev List before changing anything in JIRA. Does that sound like a good way
to start ?
Matt
Re: 1.0 JIRAs
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1 "1.x" is a way better name.
-dain
On Oct 26, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 10/26/05, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>
>
>> I'd prefer to move them to 1.x or 1.1 and make the ones for 1.0
>> just 1.0.
>>
>
> I agree with Matt. I don't see the point to a not 1.0 bucket. IMO,
> 1.0, 1.1, 1.x is all we need right now.
>
> 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: 1.0 JIRAs
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Done.
I created a "1.x" version.
-dain
On Oct 27, 2005, at 7:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> I just want to be sure we have a reasonable chance of reviewing
> what Matt (or others) is doing. Maybe it's just me, but I don't
> think this process has worked very well in the past.
>
> If we end up with a reasonable set of Jira versions (1.0, 1.1, and
> 1.x seem fine -- "not for 1.0" wasn't a literal suggestion) and a
> reasonable period of time to review the issues in each version, I'm
> all for it.
>
> --kevan
>
> On 10/26/05, John Sisson < jsisson@apache.org> wrote: I agree with
> Matt & Bruce.
>
> Have a 1.1 and 1.x and place issues to be done soon after 1.0 in
> 1.1 and
> issues to be done in the long term 1.x.
>
> John
>
> Bruce Snyder wrote:
> > On 10/26/05, Matt Hogstrom < matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'd prefer to move them to 1.x or 1.1 and make the ones for 1.0
> just 1.0.
> >
> >
> > I agree with Matt. I don't see the point to a not 1.0 bucket. IMO,
> > 1.0, 1.1, 1.x is all we need right now.
> >
> > 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: 1.0 JIRAs
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
I just want to be sure we have a reasonable chance of reviewing what Matt
(or others) is doing. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think this process has
worked very well in the past.
If we end up with a reasonable set of Jira versions (1.0, 1.1, and 1.x seem
fine -- "not for 1.0" wasn't a literal suggestion) and a reasonable period
of time to review the issues in each version, I'm all for it.
--kevan
On 10/26/05, John Sisson < jsisson@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I agree with Matt & Bruce.
>
> Have a 1.1 and 1.x and place issues to be done soon after 1.0 in 1.1 and
> issues to be done in the long term 1.x.
>
> John
>
> Bruce Snyder wrote:
> > On 10/26/05, Matt Hogstrom < matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'd prefer to move them to 1.x or 1.1 and make the ones for 1.0 just 1.0
> .
> >
> >
> > I agree with Matt. I don't see the point to a not 1.0 bucket. IMO,
> > 1.0, 1.1, 1.x is all we need right now.
> >
> > 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: 1.0 JIRAs
Posted by John Sisson <js...@apache.org>.
I agree with Matt & Bruce.
Have a 1.1 and 1.x and place issues to be done soon after 1.0 in 1.1 and
issues to be done in the long term 1.x.
John
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 10/26/05, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>
>
>>I'd prefer to move them to 1.x or 1.1 and make the ones for 1.0 just 1.0.
>
>
> I agree with Matt. I don't see the point to a not 1.0 bucket. IMO,
> 1.0, 1.1, 1.x is all we need right now.
>
> 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: 1.0 JIRAs
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 10/26/05, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I'd prefer to move them to 1.x or 1.1 and make the ones for 1.0 just 1.0.
I agree with Matt. I don't see the point to a not 1.0 bucket. IMO,
1.0, 1.1, 1.x is all we need right now.
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: 1.0 JIRAs
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I'd prefer to move them to 1.x or 1.1 and make the ones for 1.0 just 1.0.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> On Oct 26, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> Well, from past experience, I know it can be hard to keep up when a
>> bunch of Jira's are being changed. I know I had a few M5 surprises. I
>> also think we should be a bit stricter for a 1.0 release vs a
>> milestone release -- both from a content basis and from a scheduling
>> perspective. So, we should make sure it's as easy as possible to
>> review the jiras.
>>
>> On the flip-side, Jira is the perfect way of listing/viewing the
>> details of the problems. Is it possible to define a temporary "Not
>> for 1.0" release in Jira? That way we could easily view the 1.0
>> candidate jiras, the "not for 1.0" jiras, and the current 1.1 jiras.
>> After consensus is reached, the "not for 1.0 jiras" could be moved to
>> 1.1.
>
>
> Sure. We could create a "not 1.0" bucket for the stuff we haven't
> scheduled, for 1.0 or 1.1. Jira has the following administration
> options available for Versions: Edit Details, Merge, Release, Archive,
> and Delete.
>
> -dain
>
>
>
Re: 1.0 JIRAs
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Oct 26, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Well, from past experience, I know it can be hard to keep up when a
> bunch of Jira's are being changed. I know I had a few M5 surprises.
> I also think we should be a bit stricter for a 1.0 release vs a
> milestone release -- both from a content basis and from a
> scheduling perspective. So, we should make sure it's as easy as
> possible to review the jiras.
>
> On the flip-side, Jira is the perfect way of listing/viewing the
> details of the problems. Is it possible to define a temporary "Not
> for 1.0" release in Jira? That way we could easily view the 1.0
> candidate jiras, the "not for 1.0" jiras, and the current 1.1
> jiras. After consensus is reached, the "not for 1.0 jiras" could be
> moved to 1.1.
Sure. We could create a "not 1.0" bucket for the stuff we haven't
scheduled, for 1.0 or 1.1. Jira has the following administration
options available for Versions: Edit Details, Merge, Release,
Archive, and Delete.
-dain
Re: 1.0 JIRAs
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
that's a good idea too...
On Oct 26, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Well, from past experience, I know it can be hard to keep up when a
> bunch of Jira's are being changed. I know I had a few M5 surprises.
> I also think we should be a bit stricter for a 1.0 release vs a
> milestone release -- both from a content basis and from a
> scheduling perspective. So, we should make sure it's as easy as
> possible to review the jiras.
>
> On the flip-side, Jira is the perfect way of listing/viewing the
> details of the problems. Is it possible to define a temporary "Not
> for 1.0" release in Jira? That way we could easily view the 1.0
> candidate jiras, the "not for 1.0" jiras, and the current 1.1
> jiras. After consensus is reached, the "not for 1.0 jiras" could be
> moved to 1.1.
>
> --kevan
>
> On 10/26/05, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org > wrote: Sounds good
> to me...others?
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 26, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I'm going through the open JIRAs to see what is a 1.0
> requirement and
> >> what is a future feature. For example, the likelyhood of
> getting the
> >> TriFork ORB done before 1.0 is probably not likely (but would
> be nice).
> >>
> >> Anyone have suggestions on how to communicate this? I was going to
> >> send out a list of the JIRAs and my take on what we need to get
> done
> >> for 1.0 in a note to the Dev List before changing anything in
> JIRA.
> >> Does that sound like a good way to start ?
> >
> >
> > Yes, but I worry that its a lot of work for you. An alternative
> (for
> > which I suggest we get feedback) is change what you think should be
> > post 1.0 and since we get the JIRA change stream here, we can
> watch and
> > complain^H^H^H^H^H^H discuss the specific ones for which we
> disagree...
> >
> > geir
> >
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: 1.0 JIRAs
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
Well, from past experience, I know it can be hard to keep up when a bunch of
Jira's are being changed. I know I had a few M5 surprises. I also think we
should be a bit stricter for a 1.0 release vs a milestone release -- both
from a content basis and from a scheduling perspective. So, we should make
sure it's as easy as possible to review the jiras.
On the flip-side, Jira is the perfect way of listing/viewing the details of
the problems. Is it possible to define a temporary "Not for 1.0" release in
Jira? That way we could easily view the 1.0 candidate jiras, the "not for
1.0" jiras, and the current 1.1 jiras. After consensus is reached, the "not
for 1.0 jiras" could be moved to 1.1.
--kevan
On 10/26/05, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>
> Sounds good to me...others?
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 26, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I'm going through the open JIRAs to see what is a 1.0 requirement and
> >> what is a future feature. For example, the likelyhood of getting the
> >> TriFork ORB done before 1.0 is probably not likely (but would be nice).
> >>
> >> Anyone have suggestions on how to communicate this? I was going to
> >> send out a list of the JIRAs and my take on what we need to get done
> >> for 1.0 in a note to the Dev List before changing anything in JIRA.
> >> Does that sound like a good way to start ?
> >
> >
> > Yes, but I worry that its a lot of work for you. An alternative (for
> > which I suggest we get feedback) is change what you think should be
> > post 1.0 and since we get the JIRA change stream here, we can watch and
> > complain^H^H^H^H^H^H discuss the specific ones for which we disagree...
> >
> > geir
> >
>
>
Re: 1.0 JIRAs
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Sounds good to me...others?
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Oct 26, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I'm going through the open JIRAs to see what is a 1.0 requirement and
>> what is a future feature. For example, the likelyhood of getting the
>> TriFork ORB done before 1.0 is probably not likely (but would be nice).
>>
>> Anyone have suggestions on how to communicate this? I was going to
>> send out a list of the JIRAs and my take on what we need to get done
>> for 1.0 in a note to the Dev List before changing anything in JIRA.
>> Does that sound like a good way to start ?
>
>
> Yes, but I worry that its a lot of work for you. An alternative (for
> which I suggest we get feedback) is change what you think should be
> post 1.0 and since we get the JIRA change stream here, we can watch and
> complain^H^H^H^H^H^H discuss the specific ones for which we disagree...
>
> geir
>
Re: 1.0 JIRAs
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Oct 26, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm going through the open JIRAs to see what is a 1.0 requirement
> and what is a future feature. For example, the likelyhood of
> getting the TriFork ORB done before 1.0 is probably not likely (but
> would be nice).
>
> Anyone have suggestions on how to communicate this? I was going to
> send out a list of the JIRAs and my take on what we need to get
> done for 1.0 in a note to the Dev List before changing anything in
> JIRA. Does that sound like a good way to start ?
Yes, but I worry that its a lot of work for you. An alternative (for
which I suggest we get feedback) is change what you think should be
post 1.0 and since we get the JIRA change stream here, we can watch
and complain^H^H^H^H^H^H discuss the specific ones for which we
disagree...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org