Re: Geronimo release cycle

[Rex Wang <rw...@gmail.com>]

+1

I prefer trunk to 4.0, and 3.0-beta branch to 3.0 branch.

-Rex

2012/3/29 Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>

> I consider the changes made in trunk quite substantial so I think I
> would call trunk 4.x and call beta branch 3.x.
>
> Jarek
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Russell E Glaue <rg...@cait.org> wrote:
> >> move current trunk to 3.1 and change current beta branch to 3.0.
> > +1
> >
> > As long as 3.0-beta-2 passes Java EE 1.6 tests and also provides no
> broken
> > core/primary functionality we have 2.2, we should stamp it as 3.0.
> >
> > 3.1 can focus on the continuation of 3.x enhancements.
> >
> > -RG
> >
> >
> >
> > On 03/28/2012 06:46 AM, Forrest Xia wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Shawn Jiang <genspring@gmail.com
> >> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>    1.x   J2EE 1.4
> >>    2.0   Java EE 1.5
> >>    2.1  Java EE 1.5
> >>    2.2   Java EE 1.5
> >>    3.0   Java EE 1.6
> >>
> >>    Considering the previous practice, we'd better to move current trunk
> to
> >> 3.1
> >>    and change current beta branch to 3.0.
> >>
> >> Sounds good. Any more idea?
> >>
> >>
> >>    On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com
> >>    <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>        Saw this query, have an idea about the current release roadmap.
> >>
> >>        1. Can we move the current incomplete trunk work to version 4 of
> >> geronimo?
> >>        2. Rename 3.0-beta branch as the formal 3.0 release?
> >>
> >>        Any thoughts?
> >>
> >>        Forrest
> >>
> >>        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>        From: *Arsen Abdrakhmanov* <arsen.abdrakhmanov@gmail.com
> >>        <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >>        Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM
> >>        Subject: Geronimo release cycle
> >>        To: user@geronimo.apache.org <ma...@geronimo.apache.org>
> >>
> >>
> >>        Dear Geronimo Team,
> >>
> >>        Actually, I am the fan of geronimo for more than 5 years already.
> >>        For the moment, I am promoting the usage of Geronimo as a
> platform
> >> for
> >>        non-critical applications in our company (banking industry in
> KZ).
> >>        According to our company's internal policy, only official
> releases
> >> of
> >>        open-source software products can be used for internal
> >> applications.
> >>
> >>        Currently, the release cycle for Geronimo is about an year or
> even
> >>        longer, so it takes significant amount of time before we could
> use
> >> an
> >>        updated version of software with bug fixes and enhancements.
> >>
> >>        Taking that into account, can you give any information on your
> >> plans to
> >>        accelerate the release cycle for new versions of Geronimo?
> >>
> >>        I think, it would be very useful for the whole geronimo user
> >> community,
> >>        if the releases were published at least semi-anually.
> >>        Hope, it can also increase the popularity of Geronimo among other
> >>        application servers.
> >>
> >>        Best regards,
> >>        Arsen Abdrakhmanov
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>        --
> >>        Thanks!
> >>
> >>        Regards, Forrest
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    --
> >>    Shawn
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Regards, Forrest
> >>
> >
>



-- 
Lei Wang (Rex)
rwonly AT apache.org