1.1 Status and Questions

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

All,

I see that there has been a good amount of work on 1.1 so far in terms of testing, etc.  Can 
everyone who is actively working on 1.1 reply back to this note on what area your focusing?  Also, 
if your not working on 1.1 do you have some bandwidth?  Once we get 1.1 out the door we need to 
start the merge into Trunk so its in our interest to get 1.1 done as quickly as we can.

Matt

Re: 1.1 Status and Questions

[Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>]

On 4/12/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> I have been thinking about this.  I am very concerned that if we
> merge 1.1 into HEAD we will break the build for a week or two.  Our
> history is that we when the build is broken people continue to work
> and we quickly drift from compliance.

Oh, come on, we can always tag the correct buildable version and do
our best to get the build up and running again.

> I like this plan but I'd like to modify it a bit.

Let me modify it a little bit, too.

> * Freeze HEAD asap... move all work to 1.1 with a focus releasing it

Does it also include M2 conversion (which has unfortunatelly stopped
for a while)? There's been some work done. I've just planned to take a
look at it again after some time delving into M2 internals and am not
that happy to have heard we're about to freeze head. The break has
taken much longer than I had anticipated, but am now more confident we
could finish the conversion soon, really soon, say 2-3 weeks.

> * Once 1.1 is released we start moving feature from the old HEAD
> (1.2) branch to new 1.2

What are the branches? I don't understand?

>      * Noone is allowed to break the build

+1

>      * We keep TCK stat at all passed at all times

+1

>      * The server is always in a releasable state

+1


> I think we are in the ditch again due to the major rearchitecture
> David and I did.  Regardless of this being a good or bad solution we
> are 3+ months from the last release and the is unacceptable.

  * No work ought to be done on a branch longer than a month.

Changes from a branch should be commited to the trunk as often as it's
possible leading to a situation that branches become quickly obsolete.
The major rearchitecture (aside from its importance) scares me much
and I think I'm not alone. Not only it's a rearchitecture, but it's a
major one that will likely present itself as a brand new Geronimo and
for some as sleepless nights struggling with its internals. Yeah, I
know I shouldn't complain so much, but couldn't resist doing it.
Sorry.

Just an idea, what about leaving trunk as is, i.e. following your
suggestions and use it to finish the m2 migration? The changes would
go into the new trunk in small chunks. We could always have done it,
actually, but now I feel a bit disappointed to leave all the work
because merging the branch is very troublesome.

> -dain

Jacek

---
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl

Re: 1.1 Status and Questions

[Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>]

I have been thinking about this.  I am very concerned that if we  
merge 1.1 into HEAD we will break the build for a week or two.  Our  
history is that we when the build is broken people continue to work  
and we quickly drift from compliance.

I like this plan but I'd like to modify it a bit.

* Freeze HEAD asap... move all work to 1.1 with a focus releasing it
* Once 1.1 is released we start moving feature from the old HEAD  
(1.2) branch to new 1.2
     * Noone is allowed to break the build
     * We keep TCK stat at all passed at all times
     * The server is always in a releasable state

If we had that we could have good nightly releases for our users  
which reduces the report/fix/test cycle.  This will also allow us to  
change our release policy to be time boxed (say every 4 weeks).

I think we are in the ditch again due to the major rearchitecture  
David and I did.  Regardless of this being a good or bad solution we  
are 3+ months from the last release and the is unacceptable.

-dain

On Apr 12, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

> Would it be easier to merge trunk modifications into 1.1 branch ?
> It seems most of the changes have been made into 1.1 ...
> This can be done by hacking a bit the branches i guess:
>  * creating a 1.2 branch from 1.1 one
>  * merge trunk into 1.2
>  * rename trunk to something
>  * rename 1.2 to trunk
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>
>
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I see that there has been a good amount of work on 1.1 so far in  
>> terms of testing, etc.  Can everyone who is actively working on  
>> 1.1 reply back to this note on what area your focusing?  Also, if  
>> your not working on 1.1 do you have some bandwidth?  Once we get  
>> 1.1 out the door we need to start the merge into Trunk so its in  
>> our interest to get 1.1 done as quickly as we can.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>

Re: 1.1 Status and Questions

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

Is there some way to get a list of all the commit numbers that
affected a particular branch (or trunk)?

In any case, I'm working my way through all the JIRA issues assigned
to me for 1.1 and I have no spare bandwidth.  :)

Thanks,
    Aaron

On 4/12/06, Guillaume Nodet <gu...@worldonline.fr> wrote:
> Would it be easier to merge trunk modifications into 1.1 branch ?
> It seems most of the changes have been made into 1.1 ...
> This can be done by hacking a bit the branches i guess:
>   * creating a 1.2 branch from 1.1 one
>   * merge trunk into 1.2
>   * rename trunk to something
>   * rename 1.2 to trunk
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>
>
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I see that there has been a good amount of work on 1.1 so far in terms
> > of testing, etc.  Can everyone who is actively working on 1.1 reply
> > back to this note on what area your focusing?  Also, if your not
> > working on 1.1 do you have some bandwidth?  Once we get 1.1 out the
> > door we need to start the merge into Trunk so its in our interest to
> > get 1.1 done as quickly as we can.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
>

Re: 1.1 Status and Questions

[Guillaume Nodet <gu...@worldonline.fr>]

Would it be easier to merge trunk modifications into 1.1 branch ?
It seems most of the changes have been made into 1.1 ...
This can be done by hacking a bit the branches i guess:
  * creating a 1.2 branch from 1.1 one
  * merge trunk into 1.2
  * rename trunk to something
  * rename 1.2 to trunk

Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet


Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> All,
>
> I see that there has been a good amount of work on 1.1 so far in terms 
> of testing, etc.  Can everyone who is actively working on 1.1 reply 
> back to this note on what area your focusing?  Also, if your not 
> working on 1.1 do you have some bandwidth?  Once we get 1.1 out the 
> door we need to start the merge into Trunk so its in our interest to 
> get 1.1 done as quickly as we can.
>
> Matt
>
>

Re: 1.1 Status and Questions

[Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>]

Matt,  I am focused on the 1.1 console right now, working through the
issues listed in GERONIMO-1802.  I am making good progress with help
and direction from Aaron, Jencks, and Dain (thanks guys!! don't you
ever sleep??).  I'll have a patch ready soon for the database portlet
which I will attach to GERONIMO-1802 and then update that JIRA with
the current overall status of the console (unless Aaron beats me to
it).

Best wishes,
Paul


On 4/12/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> I see that there has been a good amount of work on 1.1 so far in terms of testing, etc.  Can
> everyone who is actively working on 1.1 reply back to this note on what area your focusing?  Also,
> if your not working on 1.1 do you have some bandwidth?  Once we get 1.1 out the door we need to
> start the merge into Trunk so its in our interest to get 1.1 done as quickly as we can.
>
> Matt
>

Re: 1.1 Status and Questions

[Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>]

Matt,

I am currently working on getting the itests up 'n running on G1.1.
Thus far, I have had success in deploying the security-plan.xml under
openjeb/itests. I am now working fervently to get the itests
openejbjar.xml that also has been updated, working too.

Cheers
Prasad

On 4/12/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> I'm going to work on the deployment cli and system configuration
> manager portlet.  There are still a few bugs in this area.
>
> -dain
>
> On Apr 12, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I see that there has been a good amount of work on 1.1 so far in
> > terms of testing, etc.  Can everyone who is actively working on 1.1
> > reply back to this note on what area your focusing?  Also, if your
> > not working on 1.1 do you have some bandwidth?  Once we get 1.1 out
> > the door we need to start the merge into Trunk so its in our
> > interest to get 1.1 done as quickly as we can.
> >
> > Matt
>
>

Re: 1.1 Status and Questions

[Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>]

I'm going to work on the deployment cli and system configuration  
manager portlet.  There are still a few bugs in this area.

-dain

On Apr 12, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> All,
>
> I see that there has been a good amount of work on 1.1 so far in  
> terms of testing, etc.  Can everyone who is actively working on 1.1  
> reply back to this note on what area your focusing?  Also, if your  
> not working on 1.1 do you have some bandwidth?  Once we get 1.1 out  
> the door we need to start the merge into Trunk so its in our  
> interest to get 1.1 done as quickly as we can.
>
> Matt